Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Granton Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Granton Harbour," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Fraserburgh Harbour (New Works) Order Confirmation Bill,

"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Fraserburgh Harbour," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Friday, 31st October, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF PEACE.

INDEMNITY FROM GERMANY.

Mr. KENYON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any modifications had been made in the Peace Treaty in respect of the contributions to be made by Germany?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. KENYON: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress had been made in exacting the Indemnity from Germany?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Steps to recover the amount of the indemnity cannot formally be taken until the Treaty has been duly ratified, but I understand that much preliminary work has been done by an Organising Committee which has been
sitt[...] some months, and on which the prin[...] Governments concerned are repre[...]ed. In particular, deliveries under[...]nexes IV. and V. of the Treaty have commenced.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the position in regard to German shipping?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That matter is under negotiation at the present time.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman say when he expects the Treaty to be ratified?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that.

Mr. HOUSTON: Has the amount of the indemnity to be recovered from Germany been fixed?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

NATIONALIST APPEAL TO UNITED STATES.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to an appeal made by the Egyptian Nationalists to the United States Senate; and what steps, if any, he proposed to take in consequence?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative, but it is not proposed to take any action in the matter.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (COST).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the monthly cost of the British Army of Occupation in Egypt and in Palestine, respectively?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The monthly cost of the British Army of Occupation in Egypt and Palestine is £2,400,000. I regret I cannot at the moment give separate figures, but I hope to be in a position to do so early next week.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much of this is recoverable from the Egyptian Government or whether the total charge comes on the Imperial Exchequer?

Mr. FORSTER: It comes on the Imperial Exchequer.

COAL EXPORTS.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the weekly amount of coal exported since 31st July, the average price charged, and the profit accruing thereon?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): Statistics of the quantity and value of coal exported are only compiled monthly and are published in the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom. The average weekly amount of coal exported during August and September, 1919, was 557,000 tons, the average f.o.b. price being £2 14s. 9d. per ton. No later figures are yet available. There is no available information as to the profits accruing in respect of coal exported since 31st July, 1919.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of bunker coal in Liverpool is £6 per ton, and that the profit made on the export of coal has been swallowed up in supplying home manufacturers and consumers at 35s. per ton?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware that the price is very high at Liverpool, and it is receiving consideration.

Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we anticipate a coal shortage during the winter months? Does he think it right that coal should be exported to foreign countries, and that the working classes in this country should freeze in the coming winter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are taking account of both the considerations raised by the two hon. Members.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if coal is not exported the price of food in this country will be much greater?

PROFITEERING ACT.

Mr. BRIANT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what measures Thad been taken to check the operations of trusts and to deal with speculation under the Profiteering Act?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The first step taken in connection with the investigation of the operations of trusts has been to examine prices. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for the
Elland Division, to which I might add that inquiries are being made into the costs and profits at all stages in the handling and distribution of fish, and that special Sub-Committees are at present investigating cotton, tobacco, soap and farriery.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISII EXPORTS TO GERMANY.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he was taking to encourage British exports to Germany?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend recognises that it is desirable that British traders should make every effort to secure a proper footing in German markets, and this view was expressed in a White Paper (Cmd. 350) issued in September. A Commercial Commissioner has already been stationed at Berlin, and two additional Commercial Commissioners will be appointed very shortly. A representative of the Department of Oversea Trade has also been attached since last June, to the staff of the Military Governor at Cologne to reply to commercial inquiries. The Department of Oversea Trade will be prepared to deal with any inquiries which it may receive with regard to the German market.

GERMAN GOODS.

Captain BENN: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether ho was taking any steps to prevent other countries from importing goods from Germany at the present favourable exchange and re-exporting them to this country at a profit?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No action in the direction indicated has been necessary up to the present, because, according to information received by my right hon. Friend, Germany has no great quantity of goods to sell to any buyers at present.

Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that goods are now being delivered 5n this country from Germany?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Not in any quantity.

Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that there is an enormous profit accruing to the German exporter in being able to send any goods? Is he taking any steps to secure that profit to our own Exchequer instead of allowing it to go to Germany?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The matter is awaiting the decision of Parliament in a Bill, but if my hon. Friend has any specific instances to bring forward I shall be very glad to report them to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman say from whom he gets his information?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I had better have notice of that.

Mr. HOGGE: When my hon. Friend gives an answer it is based on information, and I ask him to state from whom the information comes.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure, without consulting my right hon. Friend, whether I can give that answer. If he will put a question down, I will inquire.

Mr. TERRELL: When will the Bill be introduced?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

DUMPED GOODS (CABINET ACTION).

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: 20.
asked the Prime Minister under what statutory authority the Board of Trade restricts imports of dumped goods?

Mr. KILEY: 23.
asked the Prime Minister under what statutory authority the Board of Trade restricts imports of dumped goods?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Trade are not at present restricting the import of any goods on the ground of their being dumped.

Mr. TERRELL: May I ask when the promised legislation will be introduced to deal with this matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question which should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. TERRELL: This question is addressed to the Leader of the House, and may I ask him for an answer?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The question was, but the supplementary was not. A Bill is prepared and is now under discussion by the Cabinet, and will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. TERRELL: Within the next week or two?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so.

Mr. RAFFAN: 21.
asked the Prime Minister under what Statutory authority the Board of Trade restricts imports for the protection of key industries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The restrictions on imports to which my hon. Friend alludes are at present in force by virtue of Proclamations issued under Section 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has there been any legal testing of the legality or illegality of the Proclamation and is the Board of Trade satisfied that they are acting within their legal rights?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Trade has taken advice on the matter, but I am not aware of any test action being taken.

Mr. KILEY: asked the Prime Minister under what Statutory authority the Board of Trade makes orders restricting the imports in cases of collapsed exchanges?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Trade have not made any orders of the kind referred to by the hon. Member.

Captain W. BENN: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the test applied for dumping; and was it that the goods were sold in this country at a lower price than they were sold in the country of origin or at a lower price than that at which the same goods were sold in this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be under some misapprehension. At present there is no antidumping action being taken. A Bill to deal with the matter is to be introduced at an early date, when the precise nature of the test to be applied will be determined by Parliament.

GERMAN TRADE WITH RUSSIA.

Mr. KENYON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the present amount of German trade with Russia?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No figures are available as to German trade with Russia. I am informed, however, that the quantity of German goods reaching Russia is very small.

RUSSIA (BLOCKADE)

Mr. ARNOLD: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Supreme Economic Council had instituted a blockade of Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: While no blockade of Russia in the technical sense of the word has been instituted, the Allied and Associated Governments have transmitted a Note to the Neutral Governments inviting them to co-operate in preventing communication between their nationals and the parts of Russia controlled by the Soviet Government: a Note has also been transmitted to the German Government through the Inter-Allied Armistice Commission requesting them to take similar action. Trade with South Russian ports is now proceeding as freely as difficulties of transport and finance permit. His Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to encourage trade with South Russia.

Mr. ROGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say on whose authority we are refusing to deal with the Soviet Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is part of the policy of the Allies in Paris.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What replies have been received from the Neutral Governments and from the German Government to our Notes?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must put that question on the Paper.

WOMEN'S ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Air Ministry how many women, officers and other ranks, respectively, were in the Women's Royal Air Force on 1st October, 1919; and how many women, other than those in the Women's Royal Air Force, were employed by the Royal Air Force on the same date?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): The numerical strength of the Women's Royal Air Force on the 30th of September, 1919, was:


Officers
164


Other ranks
5,800


It is proposed to reduce this number to 400 by the 1st of December, and to 200
by the 1st January, 1920. The number of female civil subordinates on the same date was 2,529.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that the 400 and 200 respectively apply to all ranks, or only to officers?

Major-General SEELY: Of course, to all ranks.

Mr. BILLING: To what extent does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reduce the female Air Force?

Major-General SEELY: That is given in my answer. The hon. Member did not hear my answer. I said 400 on 1st December and 200 on 1st January.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND).

Major M`KENZIE WOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of houses which had been erected under the new housing schemes and the number upon which operations had commenced?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Mr. Pratt): Seventy-two temporary houses have been provided and are in occupation. No permanent houses have yet been completed. Seven hundred and sixty-eight houses are in course of erection, some of them being ready for roofing.

Mr. HOGGE: Are the seventy-two houses wooden houses?

Mr. PRATT: Yes.

Mr. ROSE: Does that apply to the whole of Scotland?

Mr. PRATT: Yes.

ENEMY PRISONERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many enemy and former enemy prisoners are now in this country; and how many soldiers are employed in guarding them?

Mr. FORSTER: On the 20th October there were 72,065 combatant prisoners of war in the United Kingdom; the number is, of course being continually reduced as repatriation progresses. This total includes
both enemy and former enemy combatant prisoners if, by tile latter, the hon. and gallant Member means prisoners of war of any of the enemy belligerents with whom a Treaty of Peace has been concluded. If his question is intended to cover enemy aliens in this country, then I must refer him to my right lion. Friend the Home Secretary. From the latest Returns available, 10,244 soldiers are employed in guarding prisoners of war; but I would add that the number is being reduced daily.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

MESOPOTAMIA.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many troops, white and Indian, respectively, are in Mesopotamia; and how many of these white troops are volunteers for the post-war Armies?

Mr. FORSTER: The numbers at the end of September were:—British troops, 21,000; Indian troops, 79,000. Of the British troops, 501 men have voluntarily enlisted for the after-war Army.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what progress is being made to relieve demobilisable men by volunteers?

Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to make next week.

Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the whole of the old Army who are in Mesopotamia will be returned, as many of them have been there four years?

Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say that without notice.

WILTSHIRE REGIMENT.

Mr. TERRELL (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War whether a battalion of the Wiltshires in India has now been ordered home, and, if not, what are the reasons for the delay?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have not received any private notice.

Mr. TERRELL: I gave you notice in a letter which I left at the door yesterday afternoon.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I greatly regret that it had not reached me up to Question Time.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MOTOR CARS).

Mr. KILEY: 24.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present number of cars in use in connection with Government Departments.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The number of motor cars in use in connection with Government Departments is—in London 73, in the Provinces 339.

UNEMPLOYMENT PAY.

Mr. TERRELL (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether ex-soldiers and ex-sailors who are out of work in consequence of the moulders' strike will be paid unemployment pay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): The rule applicable in this connection is that laid down by Parliament in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and is the same for ex-members of His Majesty's Forces as for others. A notice setting out the effect of this rule in relation to the moulders' strike was published recently in the Press; briefly it amounts to this, that the moulders' strike causes the disqualification for donation of all the workpeople employed in the foundry, but not of workpeople employed elsewhere in the engineering establishment concerned. The interpretation of the rule in individual cases does not rest with the Department, but with the Courts of Referees and the Umpire, whose decision is final.

Mr. TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases of very great hardship amongst ex-soldiers and ex-sailors who have only recently joined unions, and who can get no relief from the union, and can he see his way to meet their cases by giving them unemployment pay?

Mr. WARDLE: As I have already pointed out, it does not rest with me. I should imagine that the numbers must be very few.

Mr. TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, though the number may be few, there are cases of very great hardship and injustice?

Mr. WARDLE: I am not quite sure how the rule to which I have referred can be altered, but I will make inquiries.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will add to his statement of Government expenditure the contingent liability on the rates caused by the Education, Housing and other Acts recently passed into law?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am very doubtful whether it would be possible to make such an estimate as my right hon. Friend desires, but I will ask the Ministries of Health and Education whether they can supply the information, but it would, as my right hon. Friend will agree, be very undesirable to postpone the presentation of the Papers already promised until this further information had been obtained.

Mr. LAMBERT: When does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be in a position to give this information, as the rates in some districts are threatening to rise to very ruinous heights?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Although my right hon. Friend puts his question to me, he is asking for information from half-a-dozen Departments or several Departments, and he desires that I should collect the information rather than that he should collect it himself. I am communicating with the two principal ones who are responsible for the Acts which he names in his question. I do not know whether they will be able to give the information, but if they do I will communicate it to my right hon. Friend as soon as I receive it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is not the right hon. Gentleman the guardian of the financial interests of the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think am guardian of the ratepayers. I have sufficient burdens on my shoulders already without being responsible for that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to ask the Leader of the House what business it is proposed to take next week, and if the House sit to-morrow (Friday) what is the business to be considered?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose that the House should sit to-morrow and take the concluding stages of the Aliens Restriction Bill, including the Third Reading, and other Orders on the Paper.
Upon Monday we propose to take the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill, the Superannuation (Prison Officers) Bill, Second Reading, and some other Orders.
On Tuesday next the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill, and
Upon Wednesday—as I understand it is agreeable to all sections of the House—we propose to take the discussion on the financial position of the country. The House will probably regard it as desirable —and I think it is desirable—to have two days for the Debate. Therefore, I am leaving Thursday free, should the House so desire.

Orders of the Day — ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Incitement to Sedition, etc.)

(1) If any alien attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause sedition or disaffection amongst any of His majesty's Forces or the forces of his majesty's Allies, or amongst the civilian population, he shah be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for a term not exceeding ten years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
(2) If any alien promotes or attempts to promote industrial unrest in any industry in which he is not bonâ fide engaged in the United Kingdom, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

Amendment proposed [22nd October], to leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Tyson Wilson.]

Question again proposed, ''That the words 'If any alien' stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. WILSON: In again urging the Government to meet us by accepting this Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2), I would point out that, assuming that an alien is a member of the Transport Workers' Union, he can make as strong a speech as he likes at a meeting of the transport workers in connection with hours of labour or other conditions of labour, and he cannot be prosecuted under this Act, but if he goes to a meeting of railwaymen or miners and makes the same speech, or a speech of a milder nature, it is possible under this Sub-section for him to be prosecuted. I submit that that is placing a member of a trade union in an extremely invidious position, and that instead of making for the harmonious working of the Act it will have just the contrary effect. Some hon. Members last

night, when I was using this illustration, said that one way out of the difficulty was for the member, in this case, of the Transport Workers' Union, to become naturalised, so that he could then speak at any and every meeting in the country Without fear. Does the right hon. Gentleman favour naturalisation? I do not, and therefore if an alien is a member of a trade union and is dealing with questions which are purely industrial, I would give him the same liberty to make the same speech at a miners' meeting or a meeting of the railwaymen that he could make at a meeting of the transport workers. The Sub-section is absurd on the face of it. Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman, that a prominent member of one of the societies that I have referred to has made his speech at a meeting of members of his own union, and he makes the same speech at a meeting of the members of another union and is arrested, and prosecuted, and sentenced to one, two, or three months' imprisonment. Is it not quite possible, nay, is it not quite probable, that the members of the Triple Alliance would resent the prosecution of a man for making a speech at one gathering when he had riot been prosecuted for making the same speech at another gathering? I suggest to him that if he wishes to avert unrest and industrial trouble, and if he wants the Act to work smoothly, he will accept my Amendment. If he will not accept the Amendment as a whole, I hope he will accept it in a somewhat modified form; but, speaking from a long experience of trade union work and of labour matters, I think it would be in the best interests of everybody concerned if he would agree to the deletion of the Subsection.

Question put, "That the words 'If any alien' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 50.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
[3.15 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Barwick, Major G. O.
Butcher, Sir J. G.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Grifflth
Campion, Colonel W. R.


Archdale, Edward M.
Bottomley, Horatio
Carr, W. T.


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)


Baird, John Lawrence
Breese, Major C. E.
Casey, T. W.


Baldwin, Stanley
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cayzer, Major H. R,


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, Harold
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Brown; T. W. (Down, N.)
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Bell. Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bruton, Sir J.
Cheyne. Sir William Watson


Bigland, Alfred
Buckley, Lleut.-Colonel A.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender


Billing, Noel Pemberton
Burden, Colonel Rowland
Clough, R.


Bird, Alfred
Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Inskip, T. W. H.
Preston, W. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jackson, Lt,-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Purchase, H. G.


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Jodrell, N. P.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Richardson, Sir Albion (Peekham)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Kidd, James
Rodger, A. K.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roundall, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Dawes, J. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Dean, Corn. P. T.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Glasgow)
Seddon, James


Edge, Captain William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Right Hon. John


Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Eyres-Mansell, Commander
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Falcon, Captain M.
Lorden, John William
Stanley, Col. H. G. F. (Preston)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lynn, R. J.
Stewart, Gershom


Fell, Sir Arthur
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Sturrock, J. Leng.


Foxcroft, Captain C.
M`Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Gange, E. S.
Macmaster, Donald
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Magnus, Sir Philip
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Glyn, Major R.
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Matthews, David
Tickler, Thomas George


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Moles, Thomas
Townley, Maximilian G.


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wardle, George J.


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Mosley, Oswald
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Greig, Colonel James William
Murchison, C. K.
Wason, John Cathcart


Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rallox)
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Hanna, G. B.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Whitla, Sir William


Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)
Nall, Major Joseph
Williams, Lt.-Corn. C. (Tavistock)


Haslam, Lewis
Nicholl, Corn. Sir Edward
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Milder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Norton Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Houston, Robert Paterson
Parker, James
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)



Hurd, P. A.
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lord E


Hurst, Major G. B.
Pratt, John William
Ta'bot and Capt. Guest.


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.




NOES


Adamson Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, J. M.
Sitch, C. H.


Cairns, John
Holmes, J.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Cape, Tom
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Swan, J. E. C.


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thorne. Col. W. (Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Finney, Samuel
Neal, Arthur
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, A. E.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkie, Alexander


Grundy, T. W.
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hall, F. (Yorks. Normanton)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Henderson, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr.


Hirst. G. H.
Rowlands James
T. Wilson and Captain A. Smith.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "alien" ["If any alien promotes"], to insert the words "other than a bonâ fide official of a registered trade union."
I hope that this Amendment will meet certain hard cases that leave been disclosed in the discussion on the last Amendment, without in any way hampering the Home Office in prosecuting and sending out of the country dangerous characters of foreign nationality. The object of the
Amendment is to safeguard the case of the foreigner who is the secretary of a trade union, most members of which are aliens, as, for example, the tailoring trades, and so on, in the East End of London and in Manchester. It is said that these people ought to become naturalised, but this Bill, and Orders in Council that hang on this Bill, are making it far harder now to become naturalised, and, therefore, with the best will in the world, these people may not be able to become naturalised.
Nevertheless, I think it is most desirable that these alien trades—tailoring, and so on—which are what is known generally as sweated trades—[An Hon. MEMBER dissented.] I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, who has greater knowledge than I have of the trades in the East End, but I think aliens are employed by other aliens in this country, and have been employed in the past at very low wages. In fact, these men come from the ghettoes of the great manufacturing towns of Eastern Europe, where there was, unfortunately, a low standard of life. They come here, and I think we succeed in a generation or two in raising them morally, physically, and in every way, so that they become a very fair imitation of the natives.
It is most necessary that these people should have some organisation. Their employers are very often aliens, and these people need protection just the same as anybody else. The officials of their organisations have to be of their own nationality, and, for the reasons I have explained, it is difficult for thorn to become naturalised. This Amendment would safeguard the case of the secretary of a Jewish tailors' union or guild who attends a meeting of a trades and labour council, for example, or meets with officials of other trade unions and who would be, according to the letter of the law, liable to prosecution and to imprisonment up to three months. We do not want any sort of persecution of trade union officials, simply because they happen not to have been naturalised. At the same time, this Amendment would not in any way hamper the Home Secretary in prosecuting foreigners. I do not think the English working man concerns himself with any desire to persecute these people, and I know a good deal about English working men, having served with their class for a good many years in ships. I think they pay very little attention to foreign agitators and even less to their own agitators. I think it would be better if they did sometimes. Without weakening the hands of the Home Secretary in any respect, this Amendment does guard the case of a bonâ fide secretary of a small alien union trying to uplift their economic lot, and who might otherwise, according to the letter of the law, be liable to prosecution.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that this Amendment affords a convenient compromise between the Bill and the Amendment previously moved. I support both Amendments because I believe in freedom of speech. I do not want people to be led away by agitators who put -stupidity into their heads, but I believe in freedom of speech, because unless you allow people to hear nonsense they will never learn to know right. Unless you allow them to go wrong they will never go right. The whole secret of the political education of the working man of this country has been because he was allowed to hear every point of view so that he has now a clear policy and is able to discover what is right and what is wrong. It is on the same principle of allowing a child who is learning to walk to tumble. It is on those lines that England has been built up. The whole object of this Bill is to circumscribe the freedom of the subject in this country.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): This is not an Amendment that it is possible to accept. It really is based upon a total misapprehension of the mischief that is aimed at, and the effect of the provisions of the Bill. We have gone as far as we can go in allowing the alien who chooses to remain an alien to deal with matters connected with his own trade. The alien working in his trade will be able to take any part he likes in a dispute, but when he comes to deal with bodies like the Triple Alliance, well, I am astonished to think that the miners, transport or railway workers who wished to decide a matter in dispute would, any one of them, desire as a spokesman an alien—still more, that he should be an alien un-naturalised. The argument is raising up bogeys that do not exist. A man chooses to remain an alien. We allow him to remain in this country. He enjoys the hospitality of this country. He can protect his own personal interests, and in his trade he is there secured in his interests. I do not see why he should be allowed to interfere with other people in other trades.

Mr. BILLING: Really, anyone who has read this Clause and the Amendment, and gives any support to the latter, must do so because of some peculiar reason of being anxious to see industrial disturbances in this country. I only wish the Government had strengthened the Clause so as to make it that no alien should be allowed to promote any industrial unrest,
whether or not a member of that trade. By this the Government are accepting or allowing the principle of direct action. The alien is not allowed to vote here, which means that he is not allowed to take part in the legislation of the country. Yet we allow him to promote industrial unrest which one must naturally assume is aimed against the laws. To allow such a man to take direct action through the medium of strikes is to admit the principle of direct action; thus holding up the Government. and inciting the British working man. I would put this point not only before the Government but before the Labour members. We have a heavy time ahead of us. We are all agreed that so long as the question of industrial unrest is considered in the light of the good sense of the average British working man who, thank God, pays little attention to the agitation —some Labour members seem to regret that ‡—if I say the thing is left in their hands we shall muddle through without bloodshed. But if the alien agitator is allowed to take a hand in the game there will be bloodshed in this country in the next twelve months.

Mr. HODGE: I do not think that this Amendment has exactly the construction that the Home Secretary has placed upon it. We on these benches think the Clause as it stands is very dangerous. For instance, when before the War we have attended international conferences in Germany we have been amused at the presence of the military, who prevented certain people from speaking. There was an ex-Member of this House so prevented. This Clause would give the Government here the same power to interfere in an international conference of preventing a foreign delegate speaking because he might not be palatable to the Government. I hope the Home Secretary will find some words to modify the Clause. We do not believe that certain people should be at liberty to create disaffection. You have the power necessary to deal with this in the previous paragraph of the Bill. So far as trade union matters are concerned, I really think, in view of the point I have made, that the Home Secretary should do something to preserve us from the Prussianism rampant in Germany previous to the War. I desire to emphasise that point. At the Miners' International Conferences in Germany before the war certain people from this country were prevented speaking
by the interference of the authorities, because of the fear of the latter of industrial unrest. Do not let us have that kind of thing in this country. I hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will reconsider the position and tell us that he will modify the strength of the Clause.

Mr. SHORTT: May I allay any fears that my right hon. Friend has? I can assure him there is absolutely nothing in the point he has raised. If he will read the Clause as it stands he will see that it deals with the promotion of industrial unrest in a definite industry. That would not affect any foreign delegate who came over here to attend an international conference and discuss general policies, general principles, and so on. This Clause will not touch him; he would be free as to-day. But if he comes over here, and, abusing his position as a delegate, endeavours to promote strife in an industry lie is guilty of a great breach of faith, and abuses the hospitality of the country, and this Clause would touch him. So long as he observes his position as a delegate and confines himself to the general conference discussions and avoids mixing himself up in a definite industry he is perfectly safe under this Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: Instead of allaying the fears of my right hon. Friend and those associated with him the explanation of the Home Secretary has confirmed our doubts and fears. Some of us on these benches have attended international conferences, and we have been much amused in the various countries to discover the presence of a representative of the law taking notes for the purpose of seeing whether the delegates were, by their speeches, creating disaffection. We used to twit our foreign friends because of the presence of these representatives. Well, but that will be the exact position here if this becomes law. After the explanation of the Home Secretary I do not doubt that if this is passed we shall be just in the same position as that at which we used to be amused. After all, does the Home Secretary really require the power that this Clause gives him? I do not think so. If you take Subsection (1) of Clause 3 you will find that the Home Secretary has there all the powers he requires.

Mr. SHORTT: That gives no power to the Home Secretary, but to the ordinary law.

Mr. ADAMSON: If it gives the power to the ordinary law then it accomplishes exactly what I was saying. Sub-section (1) reads,
(1) If any alien attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause sedition or disaffection amongst any of His Majesty's Forces or the forces of His Majesty's Allies, or amongst the civilian population.
What more power does the Home Secretary require in order to carry out the objects of this Bill? The powers given under Sub-section (2) of the Clause under discussion are not required. There will be a representative of the. law sitting at any international congress that may be held here in the future for the purpose of discovering whether anything said in the speeches of the delegates is likely to cause industrial strife in this country, and if anything of that kind does occur those particular delegates will be taken in charge and put over the border. We have had that done in the past to some of our own men, and we cannot be consenting parties to legislation of that kind being put on the Statute Book. I hope the Home Secretary will give serious consideration to this matter.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I sincerely hope that the Government will stand firm. The Leader of the Labour party seems to think that under Sub-section (1) of the Clause you have got everything contemplated in Sub-section (2). If he thinks that I would point out to him that that is not qualified by any such words as are now proposed to be added to Sub-section (2). Under Sub-section (1), whether a person is a bonâfide member of a trade union or not, he will be liable to prosecution if he promotes industrial unrest or disaffection, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a fundamental distinction between what is laid down in these two Clauses. One provides for general disaffection amongst the civilian population, and the other is quite distinct from the specific strike in a particular industry. The object of that Sub-section is that, whether he be a member of a bonâfide trade union or not, nobody is entitled to take steps to promote strikes. What puzzles rue is to understand the anxiety of the Labour party to procure an increased army of strike leaders. Have they not got enough leaders now, or are their present leaders so discredited or out of favour that the old supply is failing and they are prepared to welcome the alien strike promoter? I hope the Government
will resist this proposal as a preliminary to accepting the next Amendment, which prohibits the alien from promoting strikes even in an industry in which He is engaged. The alien is not a citizen of this Realm and he has not got a vote, and it is absolutely an abuse of the hospitality extended to an alien to permit him to take any active step to undermine the industrial safety and prosperity of this nation.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The right lion. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson) expressed great apprehension on exactly the same lines as those expressed by another hon. Member last night as to the effect this proposal would have on an international labour conference. I think the nervousness of my right hon. Friend rests upon a very slender foundation. I do not believe for a moment that any international labour congress will be hampered in any way by this Clause. Both he and another hon. Member last night based their fears on the experience of other countries. There would be a great deal more force in that point if my right hon. Friend had given us any indication of what is the law of those countries. I do not suppose that the law upon which steps were taken in the case of the conferences in Germany and perhaps in Scandinavian countries were parallel with this legislation, and probably the law there was infinitely more stringent. Unless we have some evidence that the law on which action was taken was not really more drastic than we are proposing, I do not see why we should be alarmed by the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman.
There was another argument upon which the hon. Member opposite based his case for this Amendment which had nothing to do with an international congress, and that was the apprehension that bonâfide trade union leaders in this country would be interfered with under this Clause. Both on this Amendment and the last there has been a great deal of the same fear expressed from the benches opposite. It has much surprised me that none of the hon. Members who have raised that point have thought it necessary, as some indication of the substance of the point, to state how many bonâfide trade union leaders in this country are aliens, or how many within a recent period have been aliens. I should have thought that, in their own interest, they would have thought it necessary to give us some
information on that point. Anyone listening to the points that have been raised would imagine that the trade unions of this country were mainly manned by aliens.

Mr. ADAMSON: This is a point of principle, and not one of numbers at all.

Mr. McNEILL: I recognise that a point of principle is important. I take that as an admission that this is purely a matter of principle, and that it has no substance as a practical point. That is very material, and I think that a great many of us will vote with a very light heart in face of that fact, if we have the assurance from the Leader of the Labour party that, although it is a matter of principle, that in point of fact there are no aliens w ho are bonâ fide trade union leaders. [An HON. MEMBER: "No‡"] I am inviting some hon. Member who has the information to tell as and let us know whether this is so or not. I am assuring the House that a substantial number of trade union leaders are aliens, and I understand a Labour Member says "No." I want to know who is right. But whether there are many or few, I think the explanation of the Home Secretary is sound, and under no circumstances whatever, even if there are plenty of alien trade union leaders, can they be hit by this Clause unless they go outside the jurisdiction of their own trade to stir up labour unrest. I really do not think that it is an unreasonable proposition that whatever may be done for the people of our own country, with the extreme liberty that we all enjoy in that respect, there might be at all events to that extent a restriction on the mischievous activities of those who are not of our own country.

Mr. NEAL: The proposition has proceeded up to now on the basis that the words "industrial unrest" are synonymous with "a strike." I respectfully suggest that is a wrong basis altogether. So far as I know, these two words are being introduced for the first time in any Statute, and I invite the Home Secretary to consider what interpretation, judicially, may be placed upon them if they find their way into the Act of Parliament. I respectfully suggest to him that "industrial unrest" is an inapt phrase which has passed into common parlance as being a comprehensive phrase, because it may mean a great variety of things. I venture
to say [...]ere is not an hon. or right hon. Me[...] of this House who has not at some; [...] or other endeavoured to stir up industrial unrest, not in the sense of desiring [...]tir up strikes, because you may have [...]litical unrest, [An HON. MEMBER: [...]e are dealing with industrial unrest. [...] I can only deal with one thing at a ti[...] I promise the House that I will not let the other matter escape me. You may have unrest as to high prices, you may have unrest as to the government of the country, you may have unrest affecting the conditions of an industry, or you may have unrest in an industry quite apart from its own conditions. I ask the Home Secretary to consider if it means, as his speech indicated and as the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) interpreted it as meaning, strikes, the desirability of putting the word "strike" plainly into the Bill. It would be something that could be understood.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the point that we are now discussing. The point is whether this Sub-section is to be made applicable generally or whether bonâfide officials of registered trade unions are to be excluded from it. That is the only point.

Mr. NEAL: I will follow your ruling most carefully and closely, but, subject to that ruling, the point is as to how far a member of a trade union who is a bonâfide official of that union may encourage industrial unrest. I want to deal with it from that standpoint, and I respectfully suggest that these words are capable of a variety of interpretation and that the bonâfide official of a trade union will not know the position in which he is placed. The Home Secretary said that this only dealt with the stirring up of unrest in a particular industry. Does the Howe Secretary mean then that it would be legitimate under this Section to advocate a general strike, to advocate direct action, and to advocate things affecting more than one industry, but an offence when dealing with a certain industry? Surely the greater danger to this country is from a combination of industries rather than from a single industry. If I interpret this Subsection aright, the agitator resident amongst us or imported could argue in favour of, and do what he liked to stir up, general unrest, though he would be—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Amendment. The House has accepted [...]ally the whole of Sub-section (2) [...] he exception which is now prop[...] is that it should not apply to bonâ fide officials of trade unions. That is [...] only point that we are now discussing.

Mr. NEAL: I do not [...] and I am sure if I do so it is [...]vertently, to transgress your ruling i[...] the slightest degree, but within your [...] may I put it that for a bonâ fide official of a trade union to do those things which I suggest reduces the matter to an absurdity? I will not follow some of my hon. Friends who preceded me and deal with the earlier part of the Clause, but I suggest that requires some reconsideration, because the words "sedition or disaffection" are introduced with reference to the civilian population in a curious manner. I am quite unable to vote for the Amendment, because I do not see why there should be any differentiation between the official of a trade union and an ordinary member of a trade union or of the public, and I hope that the Government will give further consideration to this matter before the Bill gets to another place.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: In reply to the hon. Member for the Canterbury Division (Mr. R. McNeill), who asked if any alien was a trade union leader, I wish to point out that a certain strike took place in this country not so very long ago. It was the misfortune of the chairman of the Trades and Labour Council not to be born an Englishman or a Scotsman. The Trades and Labour Council formed itself into a strike committee, and, although his trade union was not affected, yet, as he happened to be the chairman of the Trades and Labour Council, he acted as chairman of the strike committee also. Under the wording of this Clause that individual would be liable.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ! "] Now we know your meaning. You are prepared to strike at the working man, but you will allow an alien of the wealthier classes [HON. MEMBERS: "No ‡"] You have them here today promoting unrest with regard to Russia among your own class. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO ‡Yes, wealthy aliens whom you let in and whom you support. There is no question about it. You are paying £5,000 per week to train Russian officers who are aliens in this country, and they belong to your class. But when it is a working man, a
man who has to earn his bread either in this country or elsewhere, his interests do not concern you. They do, however, concern us.
4.0. P.M.
The trade unionists I refer to would be liable to arrest on the evidence of a police constable, and could be sentenced to three months' imprisonment by a magistrate who might be interested in the particular industry whose workpeople were out on strike. We are told, of course, that they ought not to abuse the hospitality of this country. But if this country is to be hospitable, let it show that hospitality to the individuals who come here to earn their living and enable them to enjoy their life as you enjoy it. The Home Secretary says that this proposal will not affect international delegates who may be employed in another country in the particular industry whose workpeople are out on strike at this moment of their visit to this country. That foreigner may have particular information as to the working-class conditions in that industry in his own country which might be beneficial to the workers in this country, yet he is not to be allowed to take any part in assisting those who are on strike, although they are of his own trade and his own class. I beg to suggest to the Home Secretary not to allow us to have panic legislation, for that is all that this amounts to. The Government and a few otherss have been stirring up industrial strife, hatred and animosity against sections of the community who do not happen to have been born Englishmen or Scotsmen or within the boundaries of the British Islands. Are we the only good men in this country? Possibly we on these benches are, but I question if that is the case elsewhere. Show at least some toleration. If you are afraid of industrial unrest, if you are afraid of foreigners or aliens mixing themselves up in the industrial unrest, why not change the conditions and make industrial unrest impossible? But you will not do that; you prefer to leave things as they are. You are refusing to allow any, change for the better. Your housing problem is solved. We are not satisfied with our housing conditions.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a very long way from the subject under discussion.

Mr. MACLEAN: I bow to your ruling, but when other speakers interrupt, I feel bound to reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in the least necessary. If we followed that rule we should never get on with the business.

Mr. MACLEAN: I only have one other point to put with regard to promoting industrial unrest. It is not necessarily the conditions that a man works under or the wages he receives that lead to the condition which is classed as industrial unrest. We had a great agitation going on in Glasgow during a certain period of the War in which certain individuals believed they could hold a section of the community by the throat because they thought the opportunity was in their favour. The workers came out on strike and the result was that the Government, after offering opposition for some months, finally wiped out the cause of unrest by passing their Rent Restriction Act. In that particular agitation certain individuals residing in Glasgow, who were foreign to this country, stood side by side with the native-born people and fought with them against this particular injustice. And why not? Why should a foreigner be asked to pay more for his rent than is just? Why is he not entitled to the same conditions as other people? Why should he not have the same home life? Because he is a foreigner he ought not to be charged more. If a similar set of circumstances should crop up again, as may possibly be the case when bite Rent Restriction Act is ended, you are going to have these people accused of promoting industrial unrest; they will come within the scope of this particular Clause and may be arrested and sentenced to imprisonment. I hope the Home Secretary will agree to the inclusion of these words. I hope he will not give way to this alien stunt. If he does, he will be faced with a fresh stunt to-morrow.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I have been a Member of this louse for many years, and during almost the whole of that time have been working side by side with the Labour party, doing what I could to improve their condition. If there be one thing that has come out during the War—and this is known best to those who have been out at the War—it is that the Englishman, in organisation and in holding his own, has proved himself fifty times better than the foreigner. The whole object of this Amendment is to exclude foreigners from having power to lead Labour organisations. Surely the men who sit on the bench opposite and the Labour party
throughout the country must know that as far as capability, organisation, common sense, good understanding, and knowledge of their trade are concerned the Englishmen are far ahead of the foreigner. The whole point of this Amendment is that the Labour party are seeking to keep the foreigners who somehow have climbed into some sort of leadership in the Labour party under the limelight. I appeal to the Labour party not to be led by foreigners, not to take foreigners as their leaders, not to countenance them in that position any more than I would countenance them in any other position. Surely we have good enough Labour men in this country to hold their own and to do the great work for the improvement of the conditions of the labouring classes without calling in the assistance of the foreigner, who may only be able to talk a very little English, and who is working now, and has been working throughout the War, not in the interests of Labour, but in the interests of the foreigner against England. It is acknowledged that some of these men have been proved to be no friends of Labour, but friends of the enemies of this country. They ought, therefore, to be excluded. They ought to be kept out of this country, and surely the Labour party can afford to sacrifice the small amount of help they get from these incompetent foreigners. I appeal to them not to continue this alliance with the foreigner who may be the enemy of this country. This proposal cannot do the Labour party any harm if it removes certain foreign Labour leaders. It will, on the contrary, strengthen the Labour party. We do riot accept foreigners as leaders in any other connection. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about banking?"] Yes, they have got there somehow, but they have not got there by the sympathy of their fellow men; they have bought their way in, as some of your leaders have bought their way in. Let us be quite straight. Let us accept the lessons which the past has taught us. We do not want the foreigners to lead us, whether in the matter of labour or anything else. We shall be ready to be advised by Britishers rather than by foreigners. There is no question of preventing the foreigner earning his living. All that is desired is that he shall be prevented from leading agitation—from taking the leadership from Englishmen. I hope the Home Secretary will not accept any of these Amendments in favour of the foreigner.

Mr. SWAN: I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment. There seems to be a strange contradiction between the words as applied to working men and as applied to masters. There may be in the ranks of workers a man or a woman who really is a member of a trade union, has shown his or her fidelity to it, and won the confidence of the workers in it. He or she may be selected to the responsible position of leader, but if this proposal be carried that person may become liable to prosecution and imprisonment for leading the working classes. Yet when it conies to the masters they are not to be governed by the same standard. They sit behind closed doors. They refuse the reasonable request of the workers for higher wages and improved conditions, but when the responsibility comes to be placed upon them the leadership sinks into obscurity. We think that this Clause imposes a big injustice on the working classes, and we hope, in the interests of democracy and of peace, the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment.

Mr. GALBRAITH: I have not got up to talk in parables. Here is a real opportunity for some of my Friends to give effect to their own doctrine. I am just as hopeful that the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment as some of my hon. Friends are that he will. I am a trade unionist and have been one for fifty-six years, although I am not now identified actively with any organisation. I know the trade union world, for I was

one of the delegates to the first Miners' International Conference that was held. I was at the last one which was held in Austria-Hungary, and I have been at practically all of them. I remember being at Zurich along with my late colleague and revered friend, Dr. John Wilson, who was a Member of this House, and another old colleague, Mr. John Johnson, who was also a Member of this House. We had something to say, and we heard something in reply from a lot of the German delegates who were there. My friend, Mr. Johnson, knowing that I had never trusted the Germans from the beginning, said to me, "After that hearty welcome, you will have nothing more to say about the Germans." I said to my honoured friend, "John, I am old enough now to know that it is never wise to put too much confidence in a dog because he wags his tail that he is not going to bite." I am in favour of the fullest freedom; my sympathies are as broad as the Cross and as wide as the world so far as right is concerned, but we want to be sure as British people that we do not give licence to an enemy. I hope in the name of all that is British trade unionism, because the working peoples' interests are too serious rightfully, constitutionally, and legally that the Home Secretary will riot accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words ' other than a bonâ-fide official of a registered trade union.'" be there inserted in the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 231

Division No. 112.]
AYES.
[4.20 p.m.


Adamson Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, C. H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastie, E.)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Holmes, J.
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough. W.)


Cape, Tom
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampten)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thorne. Col. W. (Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lunn, William
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morris, Richard
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Murray. Dr. (Western Isles)
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, A. E.
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)



Guest, J. Hemsworth. York)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lieut.-


Hall, F. (Yorks. Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton
Commander Kenworthy and Mr.


Henderson, Arthur
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Swan.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Barnston, Major H.
Birchall, Major J. D.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Bird, Alfred


Archdale, Edward M.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Blades, Sir George R.


Atkey, A. R.
Bell. Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Blair, Major Reginald


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Bennett, T. J.
Borwick, Major G O.


Balrd, John Lawrence
Betterton, H. B.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Grifflth.


Baldwin, Stanley
Bigland, Alfred
Bottomley, Horatio


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Billing, Noel Pemberton
Bowies, Colonel H. P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)
Parker, James


Breese, Major C. E.
Gwynne, R. S.
Pearce, Sir William


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Briggs, Harold
Hall, R.-Adml. Sir W. R. (Lpl, W. Dby)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Hallas, E.
Pownali, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bruton, Sir J.
Hanna, G. B.
Pratt, John William


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonol A.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Preston, W. R.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Haslam, Lewis
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Herdert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovll)
Purchase, H. G.


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
[...]rn, Sir William


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)
Ramsden, G. T.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Carr, W. T.
Hood, Joseph
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Houston, Robert Paterson
Reid, D. D.


Casey, T. W.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Remnant, Colonel Sir James


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)


Chamberlain, Rt, Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Hurd, P. A.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesalt)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hurst, Major G. B.
Rodger, A. K.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Inskip, T. W. H.
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Clough, R.
Jodrell, N. P.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Coote, Colin R. (lsle of Ely)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Seager, Sir William


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W,)


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Kidd, James
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Davidson. Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Stewart, Gershom


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Dawes, J. A.
Lorden, John William
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Dean, Com. P. T.
Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Dockrell, Sir M.
Lynn, R. J.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macdonald, Rt. Hon, J. M. (Stirling)
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)


Duncannon, Viscount
M'Guffin, Samuel
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Edge, Captain William
M`Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Thorpe, J. H.


Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Macmaster, Donald
Tickler, Thomas George


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Townley, Maximilian G.


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Waddington, R.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wardle, George J.


Falcon Captain M.
Magnus, Sir Phillip
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mallalieu, Frederick William
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Farquharson, Major A.C.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Whitla, Slr William


Fell, Sir Arthur
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Matthews, David
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, William Lane-
Williams, A. (Censett, Durham)


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Moles, Thomas
Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Galbraith, Samuel
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Gauge, E. S.
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Ganzoni. Captain F. C.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Glyn, Major R.
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, Lt,-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Gould, J. C.
Nall, Major Joseph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Neal, Arthur
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Green J. F. (Leicester)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Younger, Sir George


Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Greenwood. Col. Sir Hamar
O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Capt.


Greig, Colonel James William
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbet.


Gretton, Colonel John

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "is not" ["in which he is not bonâfide engaged"], and to insert instead thereof the words "has not been."
I will not move my first Amendment, as I think this covers the whole question more satisfactorily. The object of this and the next Amendment is to restrict the activities of an alien in matters of industrial
unrest and dispute to one who has been here bonâfide in the industry for at least two years immediately preceding the occurrence. I realise that our naturalisation laws require that a man should have been here for a definite time before he, can apply for letters of naturalisation. That operation can only take some considerable time if a man has left his own country and
definitely decided that he is going permanently to remain in this country, and if he engages in industry and continues in industry he should not be deprived in a moment of industrial trouble from taking part with his fellows in the trade union in work within the legal scope of trade unions. But I take the strongest objection to an alien either coming into this country for the purpose of assisting in stirring up trouble or coming perfunctorily and under the colourable plea of residence for a very brief period and then claiming to be an Englishman in relation to trade matters. I think the last debate that took place has intimated pretty clearly that there are many very able men who are now at the head of the various trade combinations who are perfectly well able to put the British case and to do whatever is necessary to forward the case of the British worker without enlisting the aid of the Continental, and particularly the South-Eastern European. We are not accustomed in this country to accompany these disputes necessarily with violence or with acts of incendiarism. No better illustration can be given than the late railway strike. For the most part throughout the country during that week order prevailed. Here and there, of course, there were hotheads, but in the main order prevailed. That was very different from the methods which have been adopted everywhere in Central and South-Eastern Europe since the Armistice. We have seen how the workers behaved, particularly in Russia, when they took in hand matters of dispute, and it is for that reason that J hope the House will accept this Amendment, so that no one who is not an Englishman or has not been resident in employment for two years immediately preceding the trouble shall be permitted to constitute himself a leader of industry for the purpose of intervening in a purely British dispute. I am not wedded to the period, but I think two years is really the shortest limit which could be reasonably asked before a man ought to go out of his way to interfere in purely British affairs.

Mr. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is only a precautionary Amend went. It provides that adventurers shall not come over here to teach us our business, when, perhaps, they have not resided long enough in tile country to under
stand our ways. The limit of two years seems a reasonable one, and it gives a. man the opportunity of acquainting himself with our conditions of life and our way of looking at things. It was admitted in the previous Debate that there were certain risks of international delegates criticising the politics and the life of the country they visit. I have been at several commercial conferences abroad, and I do not think in any one of them any member who attended has said anything about the conditions of the country in which we met. I am not enamoured of the idea that we should invite foreigners too much in our own domestic affairs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) last night wished Americans excluded from this Bill. Had British citizens behaved in the same way as the three Americans who recently visited this country and Ireland, American public opinion would have strenuously resented it. I think, although intercourse is most advisable, people should he left to manage their own domestic affairs, and that too much activity by foreigners only makes for trouble. If foreigners have good doctrines to preach, let them preach them and convert their own people, and let our people put forward the views which they have received from their foreign friends.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope these Amendments will not be pressed. The provision at present is that the test shall be bonâ fide employment, and that completely protects you from the incursion of people whose sole object is to stir up unrest either for industrial or for political objects, which means injury to this country. What we want to protect ourselves against is a man who comes here, not for the purpose of getting work but for the purpose of making mischief, and I think the best test is not really that of years or months but whether the man is there bonâ fide or not. That the judge of the tribunal who heard the case would have to decide. He would not care twopence whether the man had been here two years or three. The point would be was he here bonâ fide, and if the judge found as a fact that he had come here for the purpose of mischief lie might lie in the country thirty years and he would still be convicted. Equally a man who had been here for six months might have come bonâ fide and been properly admitted and might be a bonâ fide member of a trade union. So long as we allow aliens to work in this country and belong to trade unions,
it stands to reason that we must allow them the privileges accorded to members of trade unions. I can understand the logic of saying definitely that no alien shall come here, or I can see the logic of saying that no alien shall be a member of a trade union, but so long as we allow them to be bonâ fide members of trade unions they ought to be allowed to take an ordinary part in the work of the trade unions. We prevent them, and it is a fair and legitimate limitation to prevent any alien interfering in any industry in which he is not bonâ fide engaged. There is really not a great deal in it, but I think the bonâ fide test is the better and more certain test, and if you put in a limitation of two years there is always the temptation to say: "This man has been in the trade for two years, or perhaps more, and he is no doubt bonâ fide engaged." I think the House will find that on the whole the better protection is for the judge to find as a fact whether his employment in an industry was bonâ fide or not. There is nothing between us in intention or in our motives. The only point is which is really the better. I do not pretend to any strong views about it, but I think the bonâ fide test is the better of the two.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is making a somewhat futile attempt to hold out the olive branch to members of the Labour party in this matter. He tells us that if we allow an alien to become a member of a trade union we must necessarily logically give him the privileges of that membership. That is rather begging the whole question we are here to discuss. The whole spirit of the Bill is what restrictions are we to place upon aliens, whatever their rights hitherto and their position in this country. I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir H. Nield) had stuck to Ids first Amendment, but since he has not done so, let us at least put some limit upon the freedom of an alien to promote a strike. The Home Secretary said in a previous discussion that we merely allowed him to promote a strike in the industry in which he is engaged. I dare say the Home Secretary has heard in the course of his career of what are called sympathetic strikes. Once a man promotes a strike in one industry it frequently automatically leads to strikes in many other industries and the provision here gives any man who can show that he is bonâ fide engaged in that particular industry, although he is not a British
citizen, has no British blood in his veins and no British sympathies, and may for aught we know be in foreign pay, the right to upset the whole industry of the nation. The Home Secretary says it will be a question for the Courts to determine whether he is a bonâ fide member of the industry. Any alien could get round that by coming over here a month before a strike and proving that he has been engaged in industry abroad and that he has been engaged in it here for a month before the strike. A bonâ fide member of a trade means a qualified member of it and receiving its wages, and no judge, and certainly no competent lawyer, would say that a man was not a bonâ fide member of his trade if he said, "I was apprenticed to it; I earned my living at it in Russia or in Timbuctoo. I have come over here out of love for the dear British people, and I have worked in the trade ever since I have been here. There is my book, there are my wage receipts and the rest of it." What judge and what lawyer, except a partisan political lawyer, would say that that was not legal unanswerable evidence that that man was a bonâ fide member of that particular trade?
I know that length of time does not prove bona fides. A person may in law be party to a criminal conspiracy or any conspiracy, but may not have been actually directly interested in it. If a man is charged with being in a conspiracy and he can show that he has nothing to gain by it, it rather suggests to the judge and the jury that perhaps the evidence against him is not altogether trustworthy. If a man can show that he has been engaged in a trade in this country for two years that ought to stand in his favour and ought to some extent to influence the decision in his favour, but if he comes before a Court and says, "I arrived a week or two ago and I can prove that I am a bonâ fide member of this trade," then under this Bill you have no right to interfere with him, none whatever. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be wedded to the verbal sanctity of his Bill. He seems to regard it as a sacrilege on the part of any member of the Committee upstairs or of any hon. Member down here to attempt to make the Bill a little more workable. I beg the Home Secretary, whom we have supported so loyally up to the present, and whom we want to help, to accept our proposal, especially when he says that he does not feel very strongly on it. As he says he is not very strongly wedded to the
phraseology, I would urge him to accept the words of the Amendment, because they cannot do any harm, but on the other hand they would strengthen it.

Mr. HODGE: The Home Secretary had a good deal to say about "bonâ fide engaged." Let me give him the case of a man who has worked as a waiter, either in one of the hotels or in a restaurant. We all know the conditions of the waiters in London and in the provinces were extremely bad, that their wages were very low and the hours of work very long. The men had really to depend upon the tips. They formed a union, and an alien waiter becomes a secretary of that union. Under this Bill, being an official of the union, he would not be bonâ fide engaged in the industry.

Mr. SHORTT: was understood to dissent.

Mr. HODGE: He would‡ I am afraid that a judge would not read it in that way. We trade union officials do not fear the competition of aliens. We can hold our own. I belong to an industry into which aliens never seek to enter, because the work is too hard. This country having permitted aliens to come in we find that in certain industries they have become a dominating factor. Take the tailoring trade. We all know what the conditions are there. I do not think it could be questioned that an alien tailor, speaking the language of the aliens engaged in that industry, is the more competent individual to organise that trade than an Englishman. This Bill is striking a blow at that particular feature of organisation.

Mr. SHORTT: indicated dissent.

Mr. HODGE: The Home Secretary shakes his head. At any rate, I see the danger of this particular Section of the Bill. The Bill without it was quite strong enough. So far as I am concerned, I do not want any alien to come into this country, but if you permit them to come in, treat them fairly. There are grave dangers in the phraseology of this particular Sub-section, and I hope, in spite of the Home Secretary's faith in his offspring, that between now and the time when the Bill leaves another place the position will be considered and he will see if he cannot do something to meet the objection that we have urged.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The Home Secretary has fairly and candidly told us that he
does not feel very strongly about this Amendment. He is anxious to make as strong as possible the protection against aliens coming and illegitimately stirring up industrial strife in this country. If he does not feel strongly about it, it would not be unreasonable for us to ask that the House should be allowed to express its opinion without compulsion from the Whips. There is nothing objectionable in the Amendment; the Home Secretary does not suggest that there is. He thinks that the Clause as it stands is better without the Amendment, but there is a very large number of hon. Members who think that it would be better with the Amendment. Therefore, the right thing to do would be to leave it to the House freely to decide a matter of this sort. There are aliens who have come to this country, and who will come to this country in the future, for political reasons, to stir up industrial unrest and to do their best to ruin our country. The Home Secretary admitted that last night when he said that one of the main objects of this Clause was to prevent people who come over to this country from making mischief for any selfish political purpose in their own country. There are aliens who come over for that purpose, and I do not think that the House wishes to allow aliens of any kind to come over here to interfere in our industrial affairs and to promote industrial unrest.
We do not wish to treat aliens unduly harshly, and we say that if they are bonâ fide engaged in an industry for at least two years in this country, then they should be able to take their part in industrial disputes. The Home Secretary says that we are amply protected by the words bonâ fide engaged. That is not an adequate protection. As the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out, a person may come over to this country from Russia or Germany or some other country where political movements are on foot in order, if possible, to stir up revolution in this country. That person may come over for the set purpose of creating industrial strife. He may remain here for a month or two in order to give colour to his actions, and he may join a trade union, and when brought before a magistrate for committing the offence aimed at in this Section he might say that he was bonâ fide engaged in the industry, and unless there was some positive proof against him of his malignant desires it might possibly be that he would
get off. We want some better protection besides the words bonâ fide. We leave the words "bonâ fide" in, but we put in an additional provision that before an alien can take part in any industrial strike he must have been here for two years. That would be evidence of his bona fides, and would suggest to the magistrate before whom the case is tried a means of forming a fair opinion as to his bona fides or his mala fides. I beg the Home Secretary to acknowledge that this is a point which really deserves to be met. The Amendment cannot do injustice to anyone. It cannot do injustice to the alien, because we tell him that if he is engaged bonâ fide in the industry for two years he can engage in industrial disputes like any other people. While it cannot do harm to the alien it might be a. means of doing very great good for us in a time of industrial unrest, when we are confronted with great danger. I hope the Home Secretary will leave this matter to the unfettered decision of the House. If the House arrives at the decision that this Amendment should be included no harm will be done; the opinion of this House will have been honestly and fully taken without any prejudice or compulsion, and I am sure that no one will object to the result.

5.0.P.M.

Brigadier-General CROFT: It is very difficult to prove who is and who is not a bonâ fide worker in a trade. One hon. Gentleman who addressed the House on the last Amendment mentioned the extraordinary fact that seven leaders in the Glasgow strike were aliens. That is such an amazing proportion of the leaders of industrial unrest that one can only come to the conclusion that they had somehow managed to convince their fellow-workers that they were bond fide workers, although they had come into this country in order to make disturbance and unrest at a time when it was a very great peril. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman believes that two years is an unreasonable period, and I cannot think that the Labour party feel that the mantle of leadership in industrial disputes should fall upon foreigners until they have had at least two years here. May I give one instance in which neither the Home Secretary nor the Labour party discovered the true charter of a gentleman who was welcomed into this country at the time of great crises? I refer to Mr. Litvinoff, who was hailed by the whole of the Labour party as the ambassador of the new Republic of Russia.
Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and his colleagues were very much upset that anything should be said derogatory to Mr. Litvinoff. The Home Secretary apparently gave him protection in this country, but at last it was found that the Russian ambassador in that case was spreading revolutionary literature, that he was known by half-a-dozen names of various descriptions, that his real name was Finklelstein, that twice he had been convicted of fraud, and that he had been convicted of taking part in a bank robbery at Tiflis, but that is the case where the man completely hoodwinked the Labour party into the belief that he was a friend of the Brotherhood of Labour and was not a notorious character, and even in the case of the Home Secretary it does take time to prove whether a man is or is not a bonâ fide citizen of this country. I do not think that the proposal of my hon. Friend is unreasonable, and I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. SHORTT: Nobody seems to have risen to oppose the two years, and therefore I would gather that the desire of the House is to have it inserted in this Bill. In my opinion, the period of two years should not be specified, for the wily aliens, most of whom are here for more than two years, would do all they could, but if the House thinks differently I shall not press a Division against the Amendment.

Mr. BILLING: Would it not be possible for the Home Secretary to make it five years, or, seeing how essential it is to strengthen the Bill, make it no period whatever, which was what the Amendment really was? That would receive hearty support from this side of the House. As the Clause now stands it will certainly provide an enormous amount of work for the legal profession because of its vagueness, though it makes it less vague. I agree with the Home Secretary that to put in a period of two years is a mistake. Before he finally decides, I will appeal to him to make it illegal in this Bill for any alien to stir up any industrial strife in this country. It seems to me a perfectly clear-cut issue. We either allow the alien to come to this country and stir up industrial strife or we do not. We should say, "at such period when you have qualified for a vote in this country, then you shall have the right to take part in all trade union movements, but until such time you shall not be allowed to take part in any Act which is directed against the Constitution,"
as nearly all strikes are now, more or less, because each day as this country gets, shall I say more democratic or bureaucratic—I rather think the latter —so all the fights are gradually developing between Labour and the Government as such, or the Government great subsidised institutions, and that an alien should be allowed to come and foster such strikes in this country seems to me to be amazing. I would ask the Home Secretary to accept the first Amendment, and I am sure that the Mover of this would be only too pleased to accept the original Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Pilotage Certificates.)

No alien shall hold a pilotage certificate for any port in the United Kingdom.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "port," and to insert instead thereof the words "pilotage district."
The reason for this Amendment is that "port" is not the accurate expression. The certificate is granted for a pilotage area—the area of a pilotage authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "except in the cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913."
The question of pilotage was considered very carefully from the year 1906 to the year 1913, and one of the matters which were very carefully considered was the question of aliens holding pilot certificates. The matter was thoroughly threshed out at a Convention held between ourselves and France. An agreement was come to between ourselves and France. That agreement is embodied in the Act of 1913. The terms were mutually satisfartory. Whether they were actually reciprocal or not I cannot say. Such as they were I need not weary the House by detailing them. They preserve the existing certificate holders and they preserve the right to give certificates to the master or mate of a ship which is of substantially the same class and is trading regularly between the same ports as a foreign ship which in 1906 was exempt from the obligation to carry a licensed pilot or had habitually been piloted by a master or mate of the ship who held a pilotage certificate.

Mr. MURCHISON: Are the same rights given to British pilots to go to French waters?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not sure whether they are identically the same, but the arrangement was mutually satisfactory to both parties and the Admiralty had always the power to declare a pilotage district or any part of such district exempt from the provisions. Those, speaking generally, are the terms of the pilotage Act. They were agreed between ourselves and the French Government and we desire to safeguard them under this Bill.

Mr. INSKIP: The proposal which the Home Secretary has made is one which may mislead the House. The Bill as it appeared in Committee had no provision for pilots' certificates. The Clause which was introduced is in plain terms. It provides that aliens are not eligible for pilotage certificates. The object of that provision was to get rid of the Act of 1913 and to get back to the Act of 1906. The Home Secretary, with a view no doubt to recovering as easily as he could the words which were lost in Committee, proposes this Amendment. A much more direct method of securing the same result would be to move to omit the Clause which was added in Committee. In 1906 it was for the first time enacted by this House that aliens should not be eligible for pilotage certificates. I may remind the House of what was said by those who brought forward this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), said that it was a real national danger to allow masters and officers of foreign ships to bring foreign ships to British ports, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do what had been asked for many years and to make provision that every vessel coming into British ports shall be piloted by a British citizen, a man whom we can trust. The present Prime Minister, then the President of the Board of Trade, after consulting the Law Officers, introduced a Bill, which eventually became law, providing that British subjects only should be eligible for these certificatets. He put it entirely on the ground of national safety, and said,
If you look into the Report of the Select Committee on pilotage you will find that this view on the ground of national safety was supported with unanimity by Trinity House, London, and other witnesses, and that is the view which His Majesty's Government take with regard to the matter.
From that time downward an alien was ineligible for the granting of a pilot's certificate on the ground of national safety. When the Bill of 1913 was before the House, this Clause, which provides that on certain conditions the Board of Trade shall have authority to grant pilotage certificates to aliens, was introduced. I think it was contrary to the position of the House, generally speaking, but the House was informed that there was some sort of convention with foreign Governments and the British nation were to sink their views upon this matter in order to meet the views of foreign Governments. In order to get rid of the Act of 1913 and revert to the Act of 1906, this Clause was introduced in Committee. Now it is said, as it was said in 1913, that this change must be made because of Conventions with the French Government. I do not know what these Conventions are. I do not know whether they have been laid on the Table of this House, but the position of the French Government is that there is no reciprocity about the matter at all, and a French ship can conic in with its master or mate holding this pilot's certificate, but no British ship is allowed to go into a French port without either having a French pilot or paying the pilotage dues. We have as a nation to contribute to the pilotage of the foreign Government, and they do not contribute to the pilotage of this country. Take a port where we maintain a pilotage service. These men go out to do their duty. They see ship after ship coining in which is not required to take a pilot on board because there is an alien holding a pilotage certificate, and the bread is taken out of their mouths, for they have to go out to do their duty and are not allowed to do it because these alien pilots come in with these ships. But that is comparatively a small point, and I do not base the matter on that ground. I base it on the old ground on which the Act of 1966 was based—the ground of national safety.
The Home Secretary referred with satisfaction to the fact that the Admiralty have the power, so to speak, to repeal these pilotage certificates. That appears to me to show that in the interest of national safety we must view with disfavour and suspicion the practice of granting certificates to aliens. I think we may gather from the action which the Admiralty took that the Admiralty are against this proposal
of the Home Secretary. At the outbreak of war the Admiralty cancelled—I think I am right—practically the whole of these pilotage certificates. That action showed how they regarded it. Before the War, in 1913, they exercised their powers, in regard to a wide district, which, I think, included the Port of London. At the outbreak of war there were nine of these pilotage certificates held by Germans. Some of these very men who had had pilotage certificates issued to them in consequence of the "skill, experience and local knowledge'' which they had acquired in order to earn those certificates, were found navigating German submarines. It is undoubtedly the fact that some of these men entered for the examination and qualified themselves to become certificated pilots in order that they might be assets in the hands of their Government when the time came to use their knowledge of British waters. With that experience behind us how can the Home Secretary seriously ask this House to re-adapt the Act of 1913. I think that the arguments in favour of this view are so overwhelmingly in favour of the Clause as it stands that I do not propose to detain the House with further observations upon it, except to say that the recent experience of Trinity House ought to lead those concerned in the question to say that they will not lend themselves to a continuance of a provision by which aliens may receive pilotage certificates on the same terms as British subjects. That the Government will have to yield on this question sooner or later I believe to be certain. I suggest that the House on this occasion should indicate that the lessons of this War are not to be unlearned, and that the House will not be misled by the cloak and the disguise which has been thrown over the Government's intention in this matter by the insertion of these so-called saving words, "except as provided by the Act of 1913." I respectfully ask the House to join those who are resisting the Home Secretary's proposal and to see that this Clause is preserved in the form in which it was introduced into the Bill in Committee.

Mr. WIGNALL: I want to express surprise and alarm at the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary. We have heard a good deal about aliens coming to stir up industrial strife, a lot of which has been absolute nonsense. If there is any trade or occupation that ought to be safe-
guarded in the sense in which the Clause is intended to safeguard it, it is the occupation of the pilots of our channels. I have been associated with pilots for many years; I have mixed with them, dealt with them in their trade union activities, and I know their wishes. I knew the position before the War. I know some of the men who held certificates before the War. I am here to say that in my firm conviction many a British ship and many a noble British seaman have gone to the bottom of the ocean because some of these aliens who held pilotage certificates knew the movements of British ships and knew exactly where to meet them. Do you want to go back to that state of things to-day? That is exactly what the Government proposal means if it means anything at all. I do not pretend to be an expert in the phraseology of lawyers, but sometimes one is able to grasp what is behind it or in it, or what is intended by it. Let me quote from the Pilotage Act of 1913:
If any master or mate who is not a British subject shows to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that he is the master or mate of a ship which is of substantially the same class and is trading regularly between the same ports as a foreign ship which on 1st June, 1906, was exempt from the obligation to carry a licensed pilot, or has habitually been piloted by a master or mate of a ship who held a pilotage certificate, the Board of Trade may authorise the master or mate to apply to the pilotage authorities for a pilotage certificate under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to the granting of pilotage certificates shall, notwithstanding any- thing in this Act, be extended to a master or mate so applying for a certificate, although he is not a. British subject—
That is exactly what the Amendment means. It would give to the aliens exactly the same privileges and the same liberties as they possessed before the War.

Mr. SHORTT: This is not dealing with a pilot's licence, but a certificate to an individual captain of an individual ship.

Mr. WIGNALL: That is exactly what I mean; that is exactly what I said; and that is exactly what I do not want you to do. It is not legal phraseology, but it is direct and emphatic, and it exactly explains the position we are taking up. On the question of reciprocity, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was an arrangement made to meet the convenience of both parties, France and England, in 1913 or before that. There happens to be in the House now a very important deputation of the pilots themselves. They are men
who ought at least to understand something of their calling, and how this arrangement applies to it. In conversation With them, I asked the question, "Did reciprocity exist as between other countries and this? "and for answer I had from all of them an emphatic "No!" and more especially as applying to France.
The whole thing summed up means this, that with all our talk about keeping the alien mischief-maker out of our country, with all our arguments about preventing such men from stirring up industrial strife, with all our talk about the danger to our nation, here we are deliberately saying, "All right, Mr. Alien; all right, Mr. German; ail right, Mr. Austrian; you get the skipper to apply, and we will revert to the old position that existed before the War." We cannot allow that to-day, at least not as regards pilotage. If in years to come the bitterness and soreness have passed away, then will be the time to reconsider the position. Let us do it then, but not now. On behalf of the pilots of the United Kingdom, I appeal to the Home Secretary not to press this Amendment. If the Government do press it to a Division I am looking to all those who are against the alien to vote against the Government on this issue. They are bound to do it unless they are not straight in their dealings; if they vote to keep aliens out of industry they must vote against the Amendment of this Clause.

Sir R. THOMAS: I should like to support those who have already spoken, simply because I happen to have some little experience of the piloting service in this country. For a great number of years I have had to do with pilots, more particularly in London and on the Mersey, and I know that they are strongly opposed to any alteration in this Clause. I think that in justice we should pay some attention to their wishes in this matter. It has been, I think, the practice in the House where there has been a different of opinion to consult and pay some deference to the views of the parties concerned, and the. pilots in this instance are unanimously opposed to any alteration in the Clause. During the War there has been no body in the country more loyal and patriotic than the pilots. They endured endless hardships and piloted shins without lights in all kinds of weather, and risked mines, and so forth. When those men say. "We do not want aliens in our service," I submit that it is the duty of
the House to pay some respect to that view. For that reason I strongly support the retention of the Clause as it stands. Another reason is that there is no reciprocity with other countries in this matter. If we admit aliens into this particular service we are undoubtedly reducing the employment open to seafaring men in this country. In France and in Germany and in other Continental countries they are not giving the same privilege to Britishers, and why should we give it to aliens? It seems to me to be perfectly monstrous that the thing should be suggested, and for the reasons which I have stated I most strongly support this Clause.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: May I add my humble appeal to those already made to the Home Secretary not to press this Amendment? If he does, I shall on this occasion most certainly vote in the same Lobby with the Labour party. The Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) made an excellent speech, with which I am in entire agreement. The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol put an entirely different complexion upon this Amendment, and I do not think the House realised the exact position of affairs after the speech of the Home Secretary. I understand that this Clause was inserted in Committee upstairs against the desire of the Home Secretary, who has now put down this Amendment in order to defeat what the Committee did. I think that in doing this he is not behaving quite fairly to the Committee upstairs, and I think it is the bounden duty of every member of that Committee who supported that Clause in the Committee to support it now again. I know from the constituency I have the honour to represent that this Clause is desired by the pilots of this country. It is the one object they have in view. I earnestly appeal to the Home Secretary not to press the Amendment. I have no desire at present to vote against the Coalition Government, but if the right hon. Gentleman persists in his attitude of no compromise I, and I should hope every Member who has heard this Debate, will upon this occasion vote in favour of British pilots and against alien pilots.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I think that the House is being misled in this matter and is being led off on a false scent. The position is this. There are at the present
moment twenty-four living individuals, who are not British subjects and who are entitled to act as pilots. They are masters of foreign or British ships and are entitled to pilot those foreign or British ships into one or other of two ports, namely, Grimsby and Newhaven. Everything else is ended. Those twenty-four individuals, cannot possibly be increased in number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Do let me explain. None of them are Germans; none of them are Austrians, and none of them belong to any of the nations with which, we have been at war. Certain of them hold certificates granted before the 1st of June, 1906. Those certificates may be kept alive in respect of the individuals who now hold them, but they cannot be renewed under the Act of 1913. The only new certificates which it is possible to grant are those to masters of ships who are doing what I may call a ferry service and entering some port frequently, say every day or every second day. Where a new ship is put on and where it is substantially of the same class and running into Newhaven or Grimsby, it is competent under the law for a certificate to be granted to the master of that ship. As a matter of fact, by the arrangement which exists with regard to these matters no certificates of authorisation are issued by the Board of Trade without first getting the Admiralty's sanction and approval. The Admiralty do not authorise any application without fully considering the facts of the case. So that what we are dealing with here is not what was being pictured as an attempt to extend the right of piloting into our harbours to foreigners. What we are dealing with is the question of how what we all recognise to be the evil effects of the old practice shall be got rid of. There are two policies recommended. One of them is to say that from the moment this Bill becomes law no foreigner, no alien master—for it is not a question of pilots, but of a master of a ship trading in and out of Newhaven or Grimsby—shall be allowed to continue to pilot that boat of his own, or which he commands, into Newhaven or Grimsby.

Colonel YATE: Has a British pilot the right to pilot any boat into foreign ports?

Sir A. GEDDES: British masters are taking boats into Havre, Boulogne, and other French ports—that is the cross-Channel service—every night and morning. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Hamburg?"] There are no boats trading
in and out of Hamburg, and therefore they cannot get any certificates. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why can they not get them?"] -Because they did not exist before 1906.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: They did exist.

Sir A. GEDDES: Let us look at the facts as they are. There is no possibility of creating new certificates under the powers which exist.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it not the fact that the Act of 1913 provides for the grant of a new certificate to anybody piloting a ship of the same class as that which was running in 1906, so that it may go on for ever and ever?

Sir A. GEDDES: As long as there was continuity. If there is a break it cannot continue, and you cannot start a new certificate after the break. That is the Act.

Mr. INSKIP: I do not want to enter into a contest with the right hon. Gentleman as to the interpretation of the Act, but in the Act there is nothing about a break, and the only question is as to whether a ship was trading regularly between the ports, and if the ship which the alien was sailing is substantially of the same class as in 1906 he may apply and get a certificate if the Board of Trade think fit to give it.

Sir A. GEDDES: The Board of Trade in this country works with the Admiralty and issues no such right to apply for a certificate without the consent of the Admiralty. I do not attach any special virtue to the Amendment which is being suggested in its present form, but I do attach great virtue to standing by an agreement entered into by this nation with France and embodied by this House in an Act of Parliament.

Colonel YATE: Do the French grant reciprocity in this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: Our masters of the, cross-Channel boats pilot their ships into the French ports and pay pilotage dues. I believe I am right in saying that one of the captains of our cross-Channel boats is a Frenchman. He pilots the ship into Newhaven himself and brings it out.

Colonel YATE: Does he pay pilotage?

Sir A. GEDDES: The ship pays pilotage, not the man. I would be very unwilling that anyone should consider that the Government is not as keen upon seeing that the secrets of the entrances to our harbours are properly safeguarded. But we have to face the facts in this instance and to recognise the circumstances. We have, it so happens, a Convention entered into by this country with France in good faith before the War and embodied by this House in an Act of Parliament, and I invite the House to give effect to what was embodied in that Act of Parliament. Under those provisions the number of these men is continually diminishing. It is not a question of aliens acting as British pilots; it is a question of masters of ships, going in and out of our ports every day, or every second day, being allowed to bring them in and out of the port to which they are trading. There are only twenty-four of those foreign masters who hold those certificates and only two ports in and out of which they are now allowed to take their ships—Newhaven and Grimsby. There might be some form of Amendment which is more acceptable to tile House, and which will allow us to stand by our agreement with France, and allow this process of absorption of these privileges granted to foreigners being brought down to the bedrock minimum, because I think that in common sense there ought to be a few remain for the cross-Channel services. Dover is closed, but Newhaven is open, and that is a port about which there is no great mystery. Why should we say that every snip that is coming into Newhaven is to take on board a British pilot, just to bring it into harbour, when it is going in and out, in and out, every day, running in arid out alternately perhaps with British boats which are not compelled to take on French pilots on entering the b mirth ports? That is the question which is really before the House, and do not let us be led away by the very forcible speeches which have been made on this matter, because they are really raiding questions winch are altogether outside the bounds of what we are in fact considering. I would urge the House, if they think the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is too wide—I myself do not think it is, for there are 2,500 pilots round the coasts, and twenty-four masters who are not British have got certificates to enter the ports. What we are dealing with here is a process of elimination of all superfluous foreign persons who
have the right to pilot into British ports, but I hope in the case of the cross-Channel ferry boats the House will agree that it is only common sense that the men should be allowed to bring their boats into harbours to which they have been coming constantly.

Mr. BRACE: I am really amazed at both the proposal of the Government and at the speech of my right lion. Friend who has just sat down. One would hardly have thought, listening to my right hon. Friend, that we have just come out of a war of the most terrible character, in which the liberties of the world might easily have been destroyed were it not for the superhuman heroism of the Navy which guarded these shores. Is not that going to be a lesson to us to be much more careful about these matters in the future than we have been in the past? After all, this is not a question for the Government but for the House of Commons and for the nation, and when my right hon. Friend says it is only a small point dealing with a few vessels engaged in cross-Channel services, that is not the proposal of the Government. What is the Amendment In the name of the Home Secretary? It is to insert the words "except in the cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913."To understand the proposal we must therefore get back to what that Act of 1913 says on that point. My right hon. Friend quoted it, but in face of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade it is indeed essential for the House to understand that the Government are asking the House of Commons to give them the largest possible powers, the same powers that they enjoyed before the War under the Act of 1913, and upon this point that is munch too great a power for the Government. to ask, and they ask certainly too great a power, in my judgment, for this house to give. We arc an island people, and we are in an entirely different position from any other nation in the world. Our great bulwark, after all, is the water which surrounds us. Does it strike the Members of this House as really commonsense that we should allow anybody other than a citizen of this country to have knowledge of the channels of this land so that vessels may be piloted in during a period of war, such as was done to some extent during the last war until it was stopped by the Navy? I hope the Douse will not hesitate to realise that this
is a national question rather more than a pilot question. The Pilotage Act of 1913 rays, in Clause 24:
If any master or mate who is not a British subject shows to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that he is the master or mate of a ship which is of substantially the same class, and is trading regularly between the same ports as a foreign ship which, on the 1st day of June, 1906, was exempt from the obligation to carry a licensed pilot, or had habitually been piloted by a master or mate of the ship who held a pilotage certificate, the Board of Trade may authorise the master or mate to apply to the pilotage authority for a pilotage certificate under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to the granting of a pilotage certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, extend to a master or mate so applying for a certificate, although he is not a British subject, as they extend to a master or mate who is a British subject.

Mr. SHORTT: The right hon. Gentleman should read the proviso.

Mr. BRACE: The proviso is after all that we are giving power to some authority to grant. Someone is to have the right to grant under given circumstances, but I hold that under no circumstances should such power be given. I would not insult the patriotism of either my right lion. Friend the Home Secretary or any other member of the Government by declaring that they have less regard than other Members of this House for the welfare of the country, and it is not upon that ground that I am basing my opposition. 1 am basing my opposition on this broad ground, that this country of ours cannot afford any such liberty, and we dare not afford it, and consequently we must by Statute make it impossible for any certificate to be granted. I have only to say that 1 very much regret the action of the Government. I am more than surprised that the Government should come down now, just as we have concluded this great War, when the Navy have paid such a price because of a knowledge which alien people did enjoy of our water courses, and ask us to continue an old system which has cost this country so much in the blood of some of her bravest sons. As far as I am concerned, I am taking my stand not because of any special interest in the pilots, although it was my privilege to take part in the Debates when this Act was a Bill before this House in 1913, but I say that in making it a condition that under no circumstances shall other than a British subject hold the right to pilot British channels, we are adopting an elementary precaution against this country being endangered, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see
that the sense of this House is against him and withdraw this Amendment. When he asks the House to bring it up in another form, in some language which will meet the circumstances as outlined by the President of the Board of Trade, I want to say without any hesitation that I see no language which can meet it, because I take my stand on the broad principle that by Statute we ought to make it a preventative against any authority, whether it be the Board of Trade or any pilotage board, having the power to give a certificate to an alien to pilot vessels up our channels.

6.0. P.M.

Mr. A. RICHARDSON: I must confess that a weaker case for a proposal before this House has never been stated. The Home Secretary burked the question as to whether there was reciprocity with a foreign Government in this matter. The President of the Board of Trade made two speeches. The first was to indicate that safeguards were used in connection with the issue of pilotage certificates to foreign masters. If there were no danger, why have safeguards? He elaborated that question, and in doing so he showed that the proposal of his colleague was untenable. The second part of his speech was apologetic. He tried to make clear to the House that there was no reason to fear, notwithstanding the strong plea that there were sufficient safeguards against that which we did not need to fear. I want to bring the House back to the one dominant question. The Constituency I have the honour to represent (Gravesend) includes practically the whole of the pilots of the greatest port in the world. I am not going to base my argument on the tremendous loyalty of these men or on the sacrifices of these men during the War, and I am not going to say that they have put forward any arguments they may have used for s reasons, because I believe that those men are imbued with a fundamental principle of citizenship, and that is the safeguarding of this realm. Providence has given us the finest defence that a nation can possess, the defence of the water that surrounds us. You may say that a foreign master who desires a pilotage certificate undergoes an examination. Yes, he may know all about the charts and the navigation of the waters, but he has not that experience which enables a man to smell his way through the fogs and past the shoals and into the intricacies of our ports. Why should we
enable foreigners, let them be friendly foreigners or enemy aliens, to acquire that experience without which on all occasions a ship cannot be navigated into our ports? We are absolutely forfeiting that which Providence has given us, and I say this, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), that it is a first principle that we should not cede to any Government Department the conservation of our first-line defence in this country. We are here to govern, and we are not going to forfeit our rights to any Government Department, and I say this advisedly, that if we forfeit this right once more we do so on a flimsy pretence, because, as the President of the Board of Trade said, there is only one reason why we should do this very act of forfeiture, and that is some little Convention that has been made many years ago. We have changed many things by reason of the War, and we are going to change many more things. It is one governing principle of defence that we ought to prohibit aliens pilotage certificates, and I do hope this House. Will assert itself to-day on this principle of defence, because if we do not we are conceding to enemies of the past and potential enemies of the future the right to an experience which will enable them not only to send submarines, but any other future munitions of war, to defeat us in our own homes. I, therefore, hope this House will reject the Amendment by a very large majority.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has advanced two arguments in favour of this Amendment. The first argument was that, by an arrangement with the Admiralty, certain things were done. What I want to ask the Government is, What safeguard has this House and this country that those arrangements will be continued? We may have a different First Lord of the Admiralty and a different President of the Board of Trade, and therefore arrangements, which may be very excellent in their way, may be altered. We ought to legislate here, and not leave to any Government Department the power to make rules and regulations without coming to this House. Therefore, I do not think there is anything to be said for that argument. But the second argument advanced does seem to bear some weight. The right hon. Gentleman says there is a Convention which has been entered into under certain
circumstances. Now, I strongly object to breaking any bargain or agreement. I agree with almost everything the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, except his last argument, that now we have been to war we can break any Convention. I do not think that is a good thing. That is the "scrap of paper" argument which was denounced in this country when the Germans used it as an argument. I would suggest an Amendment, which, I think, might possibly meet all the objections which have been raised to the Government's Amendment, namely, to leave out in the Amendment of the Government the words, "cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913," and to insert the words, "case of France, in which country the special provision made by the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall apply," so that the Amendment would then read, "except in the case of France, in which country the special provision made by the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall apply" That would limit the powers of the Government to one particular country, France, and it would enable us to carry out the agreement made with what, after all, was our ally, for whom we went to war. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to accept that Amendment, but, if they would, I think it would be a way out of the difficulty. It would preserve our rights with regard to every other country in the world, and the only country which would be excepted would be our neighbour, France. Although I do not myself believe much in the League of Nations, nor do I think we are always going to be at peace with all the world, I think it will be a great many years before we have a quarrel with France, and 1 do attach importance to the keeping of a bargain which we have made.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have you seen the Convention?
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "cases for which special provision is made by the Pilotage Act, 1913," and insert instead thereof the words, "case of France, to which country the special provision made by the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall apply."—[Sir F. Banbury.]

Mr. SHORTT: Both in Committee upstairs and here this afternoon I entirely based my objection on the case of France. I based it entirely on the Anglo-French Convention, and nothing else. As regards
the danger, so long as we allow any alien constantly to come into our ports and stand on the bridge as a pilot, the mere fact of giving him a certificate will not increase the danger very much. But as France is the one basis of my opposition upstairs to the proposal, the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet, if it is acceptable to the House, is quite acceptable to the Government.

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: I would like to endorse everything that was said by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall). It is the wish, I think, of the great British public, and certainly of the pilots in the United Kingdom, that the law should stand as it is here, and nothing else will satisfy them. Although the President of the Board of Trade has tried to camouflage his remarks round this Clause, I still think the Clause should stand. Without any undue bravado, I might mention that perhaps more than any other man in this House during the War I have come into contact with the pilots. I have been personally responsible for the passing of 55,000 vessels in the Bristol Channel, and therefore I have come into contact with pilots to a very great extent, and everyone of them considers that we should support the exclusion of foreign pilots. Much of the losses during the War can be attributed to the knowledge of foreign pilots of our ports. I support in every way the Clause as it stands.

Mr. STEWART: As one of those who served on the Grand Committee which had this Bill before it, the Government, I think, have treated us a little unfairly. They were beaten in Committee on this point, and they bring up the question now, knowing full well that, in the ordinary way, when the Division bell goes, Members who have not listened to the discussion will come in and support the Government and perhaps undo all the work that has been done upstairs. I am in agreement with the right hon. Baronet's Amendment, but before we accept it may we ask where we are? We do not quit know where the Convention begins and where it ends. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is very keen about keeping his bargain. Well, we all are. But if we are to have a Convention with Belgium and other countries—

Sir A. GEDDES: France only.

Mr. STEWART: So long as it relates to France only, of course it modifies the position a good deal. But I find on the 28th July last, when the President of the Board of Trade was asked questions about pilots, he produced the figures which he again mentioned to-day. Although he says there are only twenty-four people with certificates, there is nothing to prevent the Board of Trade from multiplying that number to any number they think fit. After all, we know that Antwerp became practically a German port, and that Rotterdam and other places are saturated with Germans, and we may have Dutchmen Who are really Germans getting pilots' certificates. The Dutch have not been friendly to this country during the War by any means, and when in Belgium the other day I heard with amazement that they allowed a German Army to march across their territory carrying Belgian spoil with them, whereas they kept our men from Antwerp in gaol for four years. Therefore, I do not think we need extend very much consideration to them in a matter of this sort. Supposing we pass this thing as it stands in the Bill, the ground is quite clear and we know where we are. I think it would be a wise thing to do. I should be very sorry to vote against the Government, but, having twice voted against them yesterday, if this goes to a Division I am afraid I will do it a third time to-day. This is something beyond party government. It is a question of national safety, and I think the Bill as it stands is probably the best way out of the difficulty.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I only want to, ask two questions of the Government, and I think their answers would help some of us how to vote. The first is, What really is in. this Convention with France? I understand efforts have been made in this House prior to to-day to get at this Convention. We have not seen it, and we are asked now to put in an. Act of Parliament really a declaration to the House that we are to approve that Convention. We ought to know what it is first.

Sir A. GEDDES: That was done by this House in 1913. The Convention has been approved by the House, and special arrangements were embodied by this House in the Act.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was in the House in 1913, but I confess I do not quite remember this Act being passed. I am
told the Convention was not produced to the House, and Clause 24 of the Act does not say it was in consequence of that Convention with France. Therefore I do not think that Convention was produced to the House at all. What I want to know is whether the Convention with France applies to the twenty-four pilots, who were in existence then, or applies to the second portion of the Clause to enable the Admiralty to licence practically an unlimited number of new pilots and new masters, provided they are masters of a similar type of ship. The second question I want to ask is this: If we put into an Act of Parliament a reference to a Convention with France giving them a certain favoured-nation Clause, as one may say, with regard to their pilots, is there anything in the treaties with other countries to compel us to extend it to them? In other words, is there any kind of favoured-nation treatment in the Convention with regard to pilots as there was in treaties as to Excise customs and such like? The answer to these two questions, I think, would enable many of us to decide whether to accept the proposal of the right hon. Baronet or to ask the House to vote clearly and simply on the Amendment of the Home Secretary.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: One can quite understand the attitude of the Government in this matter, and one can sympathise with it, because it is perfectly clear that they have been trying—I should think very much against their will, and possibly against their better judgment—to carry out what they conceive to be a Convention made, in 1913, with France, who have been our good Allies in the War. What does the Act of 1913 stipulate? It stipulates that in respect of certain vessels coining into our ports that the authorities here should have the power to licence the masters of these vessels, being foreign subjects, to hold pilotage certificates into our ports.

An HON. MEMBER: That is done away with by this Amendment.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: We understand from the Government that there was a number of conventions in existence, not merely with France. There was one with Holland, and one with Germany; and there were conventions with other countries. These other conventions were, I understand, denounced by our Government at the outbreak of the War. The Convention
with France was not denounced, and has been allowed to continue, and the Government tell us that their idea is that to introduce this Amendment into the Bill is simply to safeguard the Convention of France. Of course, if that is so they would readily accept, and I understand, are willing to accept, the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. Our view, however, would be, 1 think, to make a clean cut in this matter. We have had enough of conventions with foreign countries which give aliens power to get pilots' certificates to come into our ports, whether it be Grimsby, or New- haven, or the port of Liverpool, of which I have the honour to be one of the members. We had enemy submarines within five miles of the port of Liverpool. We had vessels sunk between Liverpool and Holyhead. There was a vessel sunk and valuable lives lost on a voyage from Holyhead to Kingstown.
Knowing as we do that under these very Conventions—not in the case of the Convention with France, but in the case of other Conventions, no less than nine Germans held pilotage certificates into some of our ports at the outbreak of the War; knowing as we do that some of these very men were able to guide the submarines into those places where they were able to destroy our shipping and valuable lives, I think, after the War, we have all come to the conclusion that whether or not we approve—as we should like to do, if we can see our way to do it—of the arrangement made with France, there is even something stronger, and that is the safety of our country. We ought to make a clean cut of this—and not altogether in the interests of the pilots. And let me say one word about that. I have been associated with pilots during the whole time I have been a Member of this House. They had to fight very hard to get what is the effect of this Clause. They have never got it. They said that no British subject was allowed to be a German pilot, and why, therefore, should German pilots navigate ships into our ports. No Dutch port was allowed to have a British pilot. Nothing of the sort They know better. But we, in our confidence, did not think of what might or might not happen, and allowed these foreigners to get these certificates. My own feeling on the matter is that, Convention or no Convention with France, or any other nation, it is now time that we made up our minds that no certificates are granted in future unless to British-born
subjects—not only British subjects, but British born. [...]. I think the view of the House of Commons will be reflected in the country to-morrow when this Debate is published in the Press.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the House will carefully consider the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. [...]et the Member for the City of London. I appears on the face of it innocuous. [...] know the intention is to avoid anything that would wound the susceptibilities o[...] our French Allies. Nevertheless, I hope every briefly to give one or two reasons [...] the House should not accept the Amendment and should insist on the Clause as it [...] nocuous to grant the right to [...] to pilot their ships into Newhaven or other Channel ports, but I think it would be extremely difficult for the Government to resist the demand by other nations for equal treatment, and an extension of the ports —to Southampton, then from Harwich to the Continent, then from the Humber to Hamburg, and so on, till eventually you have exactly the same pre-war conditions —conditions which have been condemned by everybody in the House, including even the Government apologist for this Amendment. The position is a dangerous one in N, which the country has been and may be placed, by allowing foreign seamen to enter into our ports and to grant certificates to them for the purpose. I do not see how the Government could really resist a demand for reciprocal treatment by other nations. The Frenchman has been singled out, but if we did go the whole way, as passed in the Committee, and refuse to grant any certificates, I do not see how the Frenchman can possibly object. This is a sovereign House of Commons, a House which placed the original Act on the Statute Book in 1913, and now proposes to put this Bill on the Statute Book. I do not see how the matter can be questioned. We cannot be too much on the safe side, as has been pointed out tune and again by speakers. I do hope the House will reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and will go for the Act plump and plain as it stands, to the effect that only British subjects shall have certificates. This is a serious matter. It is a national matter. I am quite sure, after what has happened
in the last five years, [...]y will totally misunderstand i[...] we do not insist upon this.

Mr. MURCHISON: I hope the Government will not press this Amendment of theirs, because it is against the interests of the country as a wh[...]. If we pass this Amendment it must create a good deal of difficulty in other countries in the future, for they will ask [...]ve similar conditions to the French[...] I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that, in addition [...] the twenty-four certificates he mentioned in existence at the present time, the[...] are not a large number of certificates [...] were given [...] and other aliens [...] the war, which have been kept alive, as it were, by payments during the War? I shall be very glad if the Home Secretary will explain the matter to the House.

Sir A. GEDDES: I should like to give an indication of the nature of the agreement with France. There was a long discussion carried on through many meetings during the year, and at the end an agreement was reached by which this country pledged its good name to make provision by which the masters of ships trading on the three specified routes between this country and France should be allowed to pilot their own ships into our ports. Then according to the reports there followed the discussion of the means and manner of giving effect to this arrangement; and finally the procedure which was adopted was rather extraordinary. The French were asked to agree not to sign a definite arrangement but to accept the Clause which appeared in the Act of 1913, to which we are bound as far as France is concerned. It would appear to me that the point which we have really to meet as a nation is that we have entered into an agreement, and that agreement has been ratified by this House—it is true five years ago, and before the War—I will admit all that—but we have this agreement with France—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about others? "]—and we have national rights, the same rights as France, for taking our ships into French ports.

Sir EDGAR JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how that is guaranteed on the side of the French?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is one of the extraordinary parts of the whole thing. It
is not guaranteed. It is an extraordinarily complicated business. It is mixed up with conventions with Bulgaria, under which a national right was given and the most-favoured-nation Clause was to apply.

Mr. STURROCK: Other nations had the right ‡

Sir A. GEDDES: We have here to deal with this Convention. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London meets the situation in part. I will be quite prepared on behalf of the Government to accept the limitation in regard to the ports of Grimsby and Newhaven, and that the number of certificates granted should be twenty-four. Will that meet the wishes of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No‡"] I do not want to have any expansion of this business, but we are pledged in this matter to give these rights to the French—in exchange for the rights which they have given us of national treatment, and of taking our cross-Channel boats into their ports.

An HON. MEMBER: Are there no denouncing Clauses?

Sir A. GEDDES: If we lose the right of taking our ships into the French ports we lose something very considerable and appreciable, and a matter of great importance to the trade of this country, because the majority of the boats of the trans-Channel service are British boats. It is in the interests of this country that there should be the freest possible communication across Channel for the purposes of trade.

An HON. MEMBER: It is to the interests of France also.

Sir E. CARSON: If this Amendment is passed as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, what would be the effect on nations who have the most-favoured-nation Clause?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am advised that it would not involve us in any difficulties with any other nation. It is an unusual thing to put in these conditions, but that is the difficulty with which the Government have been faced throughout. I do not see how the Government can say that we can depart from this agreement under which we are receiving very substantial benefit. I hope the House will agree to some such words as those which have been proposed to enable this Convention to continue.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are we to take it as a definite statement by the Law Officers of the Crown on behalf of the Government that no complications could possibly arise with any other nation under any most-favoured nation Clause at all? Unless we can have that assurance I do not think this Amendment should be accepted.

Sir A. GEDDES: Obviously no other possible difficulties can arise. I am in a position to say that the advice I have received after a rather rapid search is that no difficulties can arise. This is the Report stage. There will be further stages, and if what I have said turns out to be wrong, the matter can be dealt with in another place, and I will undertake to see that it is not allowed to go by default and that some other arrangement will be made. This difficulty in regard to the Convention is a very real one.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the Government is going to recommit this Bill in regard to certain other Clauses, would it not be possible to recommit it in regard to this Clause also in order that we may have the Law Officers of the Crown present?

Mr. SHORTT: In a matter of this kind I must be entirely guided by the House. We all wish to get this Bill through, and if hon. Members would rather vote now upon the Amendment we can do so.

Colonel L. WARD: I must apologise for intervening at so late a stage in this Debate, but I do so because I represent one of the largest shipping ports in the United Kingdom, and I appeal to the Government not to insist upon this Amendment, and not to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London. We were told that an arrangement had been come to after a long discussion satisfactory to all parties. I can only say that those who make that statement must be singularly out of touch with the feeling amongst the seafaring community, because the seafaring population of my Constituency are not satisfied with the Amendment, and they insist upon nothing else but the Bill as it stands. I have had representations from pilots, and so have other hon. Members, asking us to see that this measure is passed as it stands unamended. The two speeches which have been delivered by the President of the Board of Trade were difficult to under
stand, but I take him as saying that reciprocal arrangements have been made between France and the United Kingdom by which English captains could take cross-Channel boats into French ports and French captains could bring French cross-Channel steamers into English ports.
May I point out that although an English captain is entitled to take a cross-Channel boat into a French port he has to pay pilotage dues all the same? That is, he has to pay for a pilot whether he uses one or not. What advantage is there in that, because, after all, you have to take the boat in at your own risk? This proposal will give to the French captain a definite pilotage certificate which will enable him to bring him to bring his ship here without paying any pilotage dues at all. Is that reciprocity? It seems to me that people who call that reciprocity do not know how to spell the word. If we have a definite understanding that if French captains are granted English pilotage certificates, let English captains be granted French pilotage certificates on the same terms. That is only fair play, and under those circumstances I should be prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and otherwise I would not accept it on any account. Personally, I should prefer to have this measure as it stands at present, for it is much safer and better. I am not going through the arguments which have been advanced by many hon. Members with regard to the danger of allowing foreigners to hold pilotage certificates, because I do not think there is much in that. When a man is allowed to stand on the bridge beside the pilot it does not make much difference whether he receives a certificate or not. This Amendment is not fair play. It does not treat the English captain or the owner in the same way as the French captain or owner are treated.

Sir E. CARSON: I feel some difficulty about this matter after the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman he said, as regards this French Convention, that we had similar rights in regard to France. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken says that is not so. I am not acquainted with the facts, and I would like to know do the French allow our captains to have pilotage certificates for the ports in France?

Sir A. GEDDES: The system is different, but our captains have the right to pilot into French ports. [An HON. MEMBER: "They pay dues."] Yes, it is something like that.

Sir E. CARSON: I want to know what "something like that" means. I understand they pay French Compulsory pilotage dues. If our French pilots get the pilotage certificates under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London will they pay pilotage dues here, or "something like that"? We want to have this point cleared up, and we really want to know where we stand. There has been no answer given to the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert). We need not think so much about the Convention because we have often denounced conventions in the past. The House wants to know whether there is reciprocal treatment or not. All conventions of this kind entered into are of course subject to such municipal laws for our own defence as we wish to pass. There is no particular sanctity about. them, and certainly if we have not learned any lessons on these matters after five years of war, and what happened upon the sea and in relation to certificates given to foreign pilots, we shall have learned nothing whatever from the War. I remember when I was at the Admiralty the suspicion there was throughout the whole of the land, and the uneasiness there was when it was found out that there were eight or nine German pilots who had learned how to come into our ports by reason of the certificates we gave them, and they were afterwards found to be using that knowledge for naval purposes to blow up our ships. Surely that has taught us a real lesson in relation to the War. I do not think the House is sufficiently possessed of the necessary facts which ought to lead it to change this Bill which has been passed in its present form after full consideration in Committee upstairs. Unless I have better information that we have reciprocal obligations and treatment in all respects I am not prepared to say that pilotage certificates should be given to any but those of British birth. I am not satisfied upon the other point which has been raised. Certificates have been given in the past, I suppose, under a number of treaties and conventions to the subjects of other foreign nations. I do not
know how those stand now, and I would like to know whether they have been denounced?

Sir E. GEDDES: The position is that during the War those certificates which in 1913 numbered 61 were suspended, as 1.0 one knows better than the right non. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) who, when he was at the Admiralty, took over the full charge of pilotage. There were, as the result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy while at the Admiralty, orders issued cutting down the number of those. certificates and they only exist now in relation to the two ports I have mentioned of Grimsby and Newhaven. For the other ports in regard to which certificates existed, although they may nominally still exist they cannot be made any use of. An lion. Member spoke of the condition in the Bristol port. Those certificates cannot be made use of. The same applies to Liverpool. There are just those two ports, Grimsby and Newhaven, and, although there are twenty-four certificates in existence, the number that will be made use of will be probably something less than twenty-four.

Sir E. CARSON: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has reminded me of the service that I did during the War. I am: not in the least complaining. I think it ought to be continued. I do not remember under what particular law it was done, although in war-time it was an easy matter to carry out and a necessary matter. I am inclined to think that the arrangements must have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act, although I do not know.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, they were.

Sir E. CARSON: But I know also that the Defence of the Realm Act will come to an end.

Sir A. GEDDES: It was not under the Defence of the Realm Act.

Sir E. CARSON: Then under what Act?

Sir A. GEDDES: Under the Pilotage Act.

Sir E. CARSON: It was the Pilotage Act which enabled the Admiralty for the time being to make Orders and at the same time to get rid of Orders. They can issue a new Order. It is therefore merely a question of reviving these certificates by
the Admiralty passing another Order. The Admiralty have that right. What answer will my right hon. Friend give to and country, Holland or whatever country you like, if they come and say, "We have got a most-favoured-nation Clause. You have given special facilities as regards navigation in your ports to France. Under out most-favoured-nation Clause [...] claim that we should have the same privileges as France." What is the answer [...] Of course, there may be answer. We were promised nearly two years ago that all the most favoured-nation Clauses would be denounced. I wish that they were. They are the root of half our difficulties in the administration of international law. I have protested against them ever since I was a Law Officer. We were never done with them. You could never make a concession of any kind, even with the greatest reciprocity and to the greatest advantage, without you were met by someone else coming down under the most-favoured-nation Clause and claiming exactly the same. I wish that they were denounced. I know that they have not been, although we were promised that they would be. I am not laying it down as a legal opinion, but on the best view that I can form on the statements given I can see no reason why, if we grant these rights to France, any nation which has the most-favoured-nation Clause should not demand the same rights for themselves. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, not being satisfied that there is really any reason at all why we should riot get rid of this Convention with France, and at the same time, believing that we are incurring a great danger in leaving open the possibility of other nations coming in and making these same claims, and believing, as I do, that before another year is out we shall be having treaties with Germany, giving them the

most favour of food [...] Clause—you will get back in[...] old circle which left us in the grip [...] enemy at every turn when the War [...] out—I hope that the House will take this opportunity of making a clean-cut, and keeping our pilotage for British seament, which is what we ought to do.

Colonel GREIG: I just want to make one suggestion which I think will meet with the approval of those who have been very much impressed by what has been said about the Anglo-French Convention. If we were to go back upon any agreement of that sort it would not redound to our credit. Apparently, under it there is a power in one [...] of our Departments, probably the Admiralty, of renewing or reviving these particular certificates. At the present time that is apparently confined to France. There are in existence twenty-four of these certificates. There can be no harm in our putting an end to the power and discretion of the Admiralty to renew, and scheduling in this Bill the existing twenty-four certificates, and saying that after those certificates have expired, either by the death of the holder or his ceasing to be a commander, there can be no renewal or revival. That will be preserving existing vested rights, and also our honour as regards the Convention with France, and it would prevent any fresh Convention or any fresh revival those certificates.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Question put, "That the words 'except in the case of France, to which country the special provisions of the Pilotage Act of 1913 shall apply,'" be there inserted in the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 185.

Division No. 113.]
AYES.
[6.55 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. C. M. S.
Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Gilbert, James Daniel


Baird, John Lawrence
Dawes, J. A.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Baldwin, Stanley
Doyle, N. Grattan
Gregory, Holman


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Edge, Captain William
Greig, Col. James William


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Gretton, Colonel John


Barnston, Major H.
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G.(Isingtn., W.)
Hacking, Captain D. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Eyres-Mansell, Commander
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)


Blades, Sir George R.
Falcon Captain M.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hewart, Rt. Hell. Sir Gordon


Bridgeman, William Clive
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Carr, W. T.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)


Casey. T. W.
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Hume-Wiliams, Sir Wm. Ellis


Cecil, Rt. hen. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Forrest, W.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hen. F. S. (York)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Galbraith, Samuel
Johnson, L. S.


Conte, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Gauge, E. S.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Craig. Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Kellaway, Frederick George
Pownall, Lieut-colon
Storreck, J. Long


Knight, Capt. E. A.
Purchase H.G Asshaton[...]
Sutherland, Sir William


Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Raffan, Peter William
Talbot, Rt, Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Glasgow)
[...]
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Lewis, Rt. Han. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
[...]
Thorpe, J. H.


Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Wallace, J.


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Wardle, George J.


Mackinder, Halford J.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C,


M`Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Reid, D. D.
Whitla, Sir William


Magnus, Sir Philip
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Rodger, A. K.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Mason, Robert
Rothschild, Lionel de
Winterton, Major Earl


Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Hoyden, Sir Thomas
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Neal, Arthur
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Northwood)
Yea, Sir Alfred William


Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Sanders. Colonel Robert Arthur
Young. Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Pearce, Sir William
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Younger, Sir George


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Olin Shaw. Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)



Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mdd[...])
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on. T., W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lt.-Col.


Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Stanley and Mr. Parker.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Gould, J. C.
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Archdale, Edward M.
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Atkey, A. R.
Green J. F. (Leicester)
Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Greene, Lt -Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
O'Grady, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood
Griggs, Sir Peter
Oman, C. W. C.


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. Ii. (Devizes)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Betterton, H. B.
Grundy, T. W.
Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)


Bigland, Alfred
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York,)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Billing, Noel Pemberton
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Pennefather, Da Fonblangua


Bireliall, Major J. D.
Hanna. G. B.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bird, Alfred
Hanson, Sir Charles
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hartshorn, V.
Preston, W. R.


Bottomley, Heratle
Henderson, Arthur
Raeburn, Sir William


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Romer. J. B.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Milder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Breese, Major C. E.
RANK, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Briggs, Harold
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, J.


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Mohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Bruton, Sir J.
Hood, Joseph
Rose, Frank H.


Colonel Rowland
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Burn, Coloiici C. R. (Torquay)
Houston, Robert Paterson
Royce, William Stapleton


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cairns, John
Hurd, P. A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Campion. Colonel W. R.
Irving. Dan
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cape, Tom
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Seeger, Sir William


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Seddon, James


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Jones. William Kennedy (Hulsey)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sitch, C. H.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kidd, James
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spencer, George A.


Clough, R.
Lloyd, George Butler
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, G. (Weed Green)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Lorden, John William
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Stewart, Gorshom


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Lynn, R. J.
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Swan, J. E. C.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page
Macmaster, Donald
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Terrell, G. (Chippenham. Wilts.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Maddocks, Henry
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Davison, J. E. (Smathwick)
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Martin, A. E.
Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)


Dockrell, Sir M.
Matthews, David
Tickler, Thomas George


Duncannon, Viscount
Moles, Thomas
Vickers, D.


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Waddington, R.


Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Walsh, S. (Ince Lance.)


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Mercies, Col. H. Grant
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Finney, Samuel
Murchison, C. K.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Foxcroft. Captain C.
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Wilkie, Alexander


Frazer, Major Sir Keith
Murray, William (Dumtries)
Williams, Lt. Com. C. (Tavistock)


Glyn. Major R.
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)




Williams, Col. P (Middlesbrough)
Wilson, Col, M. (Richmond, Yorks.)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud
Wilson W. T. (Westhoughton)



Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Worsfold, t. Cato
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr.


Wilson, Capt A. Stanley (hold'ness)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Wignall and Mr. Inskip.


Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)




Question put, and agreed to.

7.0. P.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): In view of the decision which you, Sir, have just announced, I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn till Monday next."

Mr. HOGGE: While the Government, speaking through the Leader of the House, is entitled to move, "That the House do adjourn till Monday next," we ought to have sonic explanation for that simple announcement in the form of a Resolution. I did not hear the Debate which has taken place, and I am not going to enter into the merits or it, but I think the Government ought to explain why other business cannot be gone on with. They ought to tell us whether they regard this defeat as so serious that they do not intend to continue in office. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask Pringle ‡"] It is unusual in my experience for the Government to move the Adjournment over one Parliamentary day when other business has been provided for. We have been brought together in an Autumn Session to get through the business, and there is no reason why we should not go on with other work if the only object of the Government is to secure time to consider their position in regard to this one Bill. I should not have thought that a Government such as sits on that bench would have required a week-end to make up their minds what they are going to do, because they were beaten on the vote on which they have taken off their own Whips. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no‡"] In any case we are entitled as a House to hear a little more as to the Government's intentions, to know what they have in contemplation, and why they will not take any other business on the Paper.

Mr. BONAR LAW: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word or
two in reply to the speech we have just heard. First of -all, I wish to relieve my hon. Friend of the anxiety which I am sure must be very deep-seated, as to the possibility that the Government will regard this as a vote which implies a change in those who represent His Majesty in this House. I shall relieve his anxiety as far as I can in regard to that matter. That will depend on the view of the House of Commons as a whole. We are here as long as we are confident that we have the support of the majority of the House. When we cease to have that confidence we shall no longer be here to represent His Majesty. I think old Members of the House will recognise that the course I suggest is the only possible course open to us under the circumstances. Like the hon. Member opposite, I was not in the House, and I did not anticipate such a grave calamity as a Government defeat. In any case, such a defeat when the Government Whips are on is something that has to be taken into consideration. In order to take it into consideration, His Majesty's Government must meet and discuss the situation, and come to a decision as to what course they will take. That is all we propose to do. As regards going on with other business, I think that in any case the House will hardly be inclined to proceed with other subjects, not knowing what will be the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter. Apart from that general consideration, which I am sure will commend itself to the House as a whole, it is a fact that the only business for to-day and tomorrow was the very Bill the consideration of which I have asked should be postponed.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What about the Rats Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Rats and Mice Bill will be postponed till Monday. The only business arranged for to-day and tomorrow was this Bill. I suggest that the course I have taken is not only, as I believe, in accordance with precedent, but is a course which the common sense of the House will approve.

Sir E. CARSON: I think the House will agree that the Motion made by my right lion. Friend is a very reasonable one. It
would of course be impossible to pass to unexpected business. It might put Members interested in the other Bills at a disadvantage. I also agree with my right hon. Friend that there ought to be no gloomy anticipation and indeed no joyous anticipation at to what may occur simply because we have upheld a vote in Committee upstairs on a matter of this kind. While I agree that there should be this delay, may I say I hope that my right lion. Friend will make use of that delay to carefully consider the course that the Government are taking with regard to the other Clauses of this Bill. I hope they will try to get their minds back to the real importance of the methods with which we are dealing with aliens in this country. I think I can assure my right lion. Friend that many of those who have been most sympathetic with the Government have all through this Bill been greatly disappointed at the way in which the lessons we learned during the War seem to be fading away. We seem to be getting back—at all events the Government seem to be getting back into their minds the condition of leaving the country to take care of itself as far as foreigners are concerned—a condition which brought us to itch great disaster during the War. I vent are to hope that the vote just given by the House will be
fully realised by the Government as an indication that when we said that, at all events as regards matters relating to the defence of this country, we were not going to risk foreigners being in a position either as spies or otherwise to point out the easiest way to attack our country--when we said that we meant what we said, and we mean it now. We hope that the Government will carefully consider whether they arc not going too far in modification of the Bill passed upstairs.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Without going into the merits or demerits of the question before the House a little time ago, I simply rise to say that in my opinion the Government have taken the right course, a course distinctly in accordance with precedent, in adjourning the Rouse until a convenient time, which on this occasion is Monday. It does not appear, as my right hon. Friend said, a very serious matter that an adverse vote should have been given, and I am not attaching too much importance to it, but I am glad to find that the Government are acting in accordance with precedent in the course they are now taking.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Seven of the clock, till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.